Romans is a book that is often the topic of fierce debate, when it comes to the theological topic of Predestination, and free will. Personally, I believe that God has given man free will, that all people will be given a chance of life, but their choices determine whether they will be saved.
One of the key topics of this debate is the fact that God brings blindness to the sinner. If a person believes in Predestination, they will say, “A portion of the world was always destined, or planned, to be blind from the beginning”. That, “God only rescues a selected portion of creation, not based on man’s deeds, but God’s choice”.
Your opening comments already rest on a few assumptions that should be examined before the discussion can move forward:
1. You equate predestination with fatalism ("a portion of the world was always destined to be blind from the beginning"). Can you point to a single Reformed expositor or confessional statement that defines it that way? It's imperative that we accurately represent the views of others.
2. You suggest that divine election
negates human choice. Again, can you point to a Reformed statement or confession that ever frames God's sovereignty and human responsibility as opposites to be reconciled? Does the Reformed perspective not maintain that divine sovereignty and human responsibility operate compatibly (cf. WCF 3.1, 9.1) as exemplified in passages like Gen. 50:20 and Acts 2:23?
3. You imply that predestination denies that "all will be given a chance at life." Can you show where any Reformed confession denies the universal proclamation of the gospel or the genuine offer of salvation to all nations (cf. WCF 7.3, 10.2)? The question in Reformed theology is not whether the offer is sincere, but whether its acceptance rests ultimately on sovereign grace or autonomous will.
I would like to show from Romans 1 that it makes more sense to believe spiritual blindness comes as “a result of disobedience”...
Your point here is well taken; Paul certainly shows that spiritual darkness
intensifies through persistent rejection of revealed truth. But the passage is describing not the
initial cause of blindness, but its
judicial reinforcement. Paul's argument in Romans 1-3 unfolds progressively. In chapter 1, he is explaining
how God's wrath is received (v. 18): namely, by "giving them over" (vv. 24, 26, 28). That phrase, παρέδωκεν ὁ θεός, is not the language of causation of first sin, but of
judicial handing over to the consequences of sin already present.
So yes, Romans 1 teaches that blindness
results from sin. But it does not follow that sinners begin in a neutral, sighted state and then blind themselves by choice. Romans 3:10-12 clarifies that "none seeks for God," and Romans 8:7-8 says the natural mind "does not submit to God's law; indeed, it
cannot." The blindness of Romans 1:21 is therefore
the outworking of a depraved state, not its origin.
If I may ask:
- Do you take Paul to mean that unregenerate humanity ever possesses a morally neutral capacity to "retain God in their knowledge" apart from grace (cf. Rom. 1:28)?
- If blindness only follows repeated sin, how would you interpret Eph. 4:18, where ignorance is "due to the hardness of their heart" -- that is, intrinsic, not acquired?
We see that also in:
2Th 2:10-12 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
God sends strong delusion to those who have “pleasure in unrighteousness”. So a debased mind is not the default, but rather what we are given over to if we delight in sin.
Again, seeing this text as disproof of divine sovereignty over reprobation confuses
the judicial result of sin with
its original cause. The position you're opposing does not teach that God
creates blindness or moral corruption ex nihilo. Rather, He righteously
hands sinners over to the blindness they have already chosen in Adam and continue to embrace.
Paul's point in this text is judicial, not causal. Those who "did not receive the love of the truth" are therefore given "a strong delusion" (ἐνέργειαν πλάνης). That delusion is not the
origin of their depravity; it is the divine
confirmation of it. Their refusal to love the truth is the immediate cause of judgment; their fallen nature (Rom. 8:7-8) is the ultimate cause.
If you're objecting to Reformed theology, then it is necessary that you recognize the distinctions Reformed theology makes:
- Moral inability is the state of fallen humanity inherited from Adam (Rom. 5:12-19; Eph. 2:1-3). It's the cause of blindness.
- Judicial hardening is God's righteous act of giving sinners over to their chosen darkness (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). It's the result of persistent rebellion.
So, yes... blindness
results from sin, but that does not mean it
originates from a morally neutral will. The sinner sins
because he is blind (John 3:19-20), and God's judgment in hardening only seals what the fallen heart already desires.
The earliest Church Leaders also taught that man “as it were, blind themselves”
4. ... but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to persons who oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him. Submission to God is eternal rest, so that they who shun the light have a place worthy of their flight; and those who fly from eternal rest, have a habitation in accordance with their fleeing. Now, since all good things are with God, they who by their own determination fly from God, do defraud themselves of all good things; and having been [thus] defrauded of all good things with respect to God, they shall consequently fall under the just judgment of God. (Irenaeus 120-202, Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 39 -End)
Appealing to "the earliest Church leaders" as a unified interpretive block is historically careless. The patristic writers were not a monolith, nor were they always systematic or mutually consistent. The second century was marked by vigorous theological development. Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, and Clement differ on numerous points, including the nature of grace and freedom. So to claim that "the earliest Church leaders taught X" is, at best, an overstatement.
As for the quotation itself, Irenaeus is addressing the
moral culpability of those who reject divine revelation, not the
metaphysical origin of human blindness. He's contrasting the willing rejection of the light with its judicial consequence ("He has prepared darkness..."). Nothing in this passage denies man's fallen inability apart from grace; it simply underscores that the judgment is just because man's rebellion is voluntary.
Reformed theology fully agrees. Sinners "blind themselves" in the sense that they sin willingly, not by external coercion. The question is not whether men choose darkness (the certainly do), but whether, apart from regenerating grace, they could ever do otherwise. Irenaeus' moral appeal does not settle that question. The grammar of Romans 8 and John 6 does.
Note: blindness in this post is not referring to Spiritual Ignorance, but rather a deep blindness that prevents salvation from occurring. We are all born with Spiritual Ignorance, blindness in this post refers to that which prevents salvation.
This clarification actually makes your position more problematic, not less, as the distinction you're raising here actually reinforces, rather than refutes, the Reformed understanding. Let me explain.
First, Scripture does not present humanity as merely "spiritually ignorant." Paul is explicit that the unregenerate mind is not just uninformed but
hostile to God:
"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom. 8:7-8)
That word "cannot" (οὐ δύναται) indicates inability, not mere ignorance. Likewise, 1 Cor. 2:14:
"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
Note again:
is not able (οὐ δύναται) to understand them. That's not ignorance; it's incapacity. This is not the blindness of one who lacks data, but of one who rejects light because of moral corruption. So to say all are born "ignorant" is already too weak; Scripture calls it
spiritual death (Eph. 2:1-3), not partial blindness.
Second, the "deeper blindness" you describe (the one that "prevents salvation") is precisely what Reformed theology categorizes as
judicial hardening. It is God's righteous act of giving a sinner over to his own chosen darkness. It's not that some neutral people become blind; it's that already-blind rebels are
further confirmed in blindness as a consequence of rejecting truth. So, whether unintentionally or not, you're misrepresenting the position you oppose by assuming that it conflates a distinction it explicitly maintains -- one that you yourself later acknowledge, though without recognizing that your opponent does as well.
In short, you've described two stages of blindness, but the first stage (spiritual death) is itself morally culpable and already prevents salvation apart from grace. The second stage (judicial blindness) is God's righteous sealing of that condition. Neither concept contradicts the position you are arguing against; they
presuppose it.
aerocorner.com
antarctic-logistics.com
www.threads.com
www.bbc.com
