Free Will challenge

[tdidymas]

"Hard determinism" is a philosophical idea. I believe scripture which teaches, God will make "peace, and create evil" after all, "shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" And spare me the Hebrew gymnastics, however you translate the Hebrew God did it. Further reading.

Are you saying that these verses are teaching that God does moral evil in addition to calamities?

 

[Don Maurer]

Are you saying that these verses are teaching that God does moral evil in addition to calamities?

I only saw JM quote Amos 3:6. He did not elaborate. What do you think Amos 3:6 says?

 

[JM]

Are you saying that these verses are teaching that God does moral evil in addition to calamities?

God's acts are always morally pure even when God sends evil upon a people. When Israel was judged and destroyed, people died, God sent judgement upon them and killed them.

It's all good baby. No moral evil in God doing the killin'

Ex. The selling of Joseph into slavery was a sin but God meant that sin for good. One act, two perspectives, the brothers act of selling Joseph was sinful but God meant it for good. God wanted Joseph to be sold into slavery so he could later save Israel during the famine.

Zanchius explains how the ultimate end will result in good…somehow.

God, as the primary and efficient cause of all things, is not only the Author of those actions done by His elect as actions, but also as they are good actions, whereas, on the other hand, though He may be said to be the Author of all the actions done by the wicked, yet He is not the Author of them in a moral and compound sense as they are sinful; but physically, simply and sensu diviso as they are mere actions, abstractedly from all consideration of the goodness or badness of them.

Although there is no action whatever which is not in some sense either good or bad, yet we can easily conceive of an action, purely as such, without adverting to the quality of it, so that the distinction between an action itself and its denomination of good or evil is very obvious and natural.

In and by the elect, therefore, God not only produces works and actions through His almighty power, but likewise, through the salutary influences of His Spirit, first makes their persons good, and then their actions so too; but, in and by the reprobate, He produces actions by His power alone, which actions, as neither issuing from faith nor being wrought with a view to the Divine glory, nor done in the manner prescribed by the Divine Word, are, on these accounts, properly denominated evil. Hence we see that God does not, immediately and per se, infuse iniquity into the wicked; but, as Luther expresses it, powerfully excites them to action, and withholds those gracious influences of His Spirit, without which every action is necessarily evil. That God either directly or remotely excites bad men as well as good ones to action cannot be denied by any but Atheists, or by those who carry their notions of free-will and human independency so high as to exclude the Deity from all actual operation in and among His creatures, which is little short of Atheism. Every work performed, whether good or evil, is done in strength and by the power derived immediately from God Himself, “in whom all men live, move, and have their being” (Acts 17.28). As, at first, without Him was not anything made which was made, so, now, without Him is not anything done which is done. We have no power or faculty, whether corporal or intellectual, but what we received from God, subsists by Him, and is exercised in subserviency to His will and appointment. It is He who created, preserves, actuates and directs all things. But it by no means follows, from these premises, that God is therefore the cause of sin, for sin is nothing but auomia, illegality, want of conformity to the Divine law (1 John 3.4), a mere privation of rectitude; consequently, being itself a thing purely negative, it can have no positive or efficient cause, but only a negative and deficient one…[end quote]

Before Zanchius brought us to this point, showing that God acting “directly or remotely” is not the “Author of them in a moral and compound sense,” he teaches in Position 2;

That God often lets the wicked go on to more ungodliness, which He does (a) negatively by withholding that grace which alone can restrain them from evil; (b) remotely, by the providential concourse and mediation of second causes, which second causes, meeting and acting in concert with the corruption of the reprobate’s unregenerate nature, produce sinful effects; (c) judicially, or in a way of judgment. “The King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of waters; He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Prov. 21.1); and if the King’s heart, why not the hearts of all men? “Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lam. 3.38). Hence we find that the Lord bid Shimei curse David (2 Sam. 16.10); that He moved David himself to number the people (compare 1 Chron. 21.1 with 2 Sam. 24.1); stirred up Joseph’s brethren to sell him into Egypt (Genesis 50.20); positively and immediately hardened the heart of Pharaoh (Exod. 4.21); delivered up David’s wives to be defiled by Absalom (2 Sam. 12.11; 16.22); sent a lying spirit to deceive Ahab (1 Kings 22.20-23), and mingled a perverse spirit in the midst of Egypt, that is, made that nation perverse, obdurate and stiff-necked (Isa. 19.14). To cite other instances would be almost endless, and after these, quite unnecessary, all being summed up in that express passage, “I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things” (Isa. 45.7). See farther, 1 Sam. 16.14; Psalm 105.25; Jer. 13.12,13; Acts 2.23, & 4.28; Rom. 11.8; 2 Thess. 2.11, every one of which implies more than a bare permission of sin. Bucer asserts this, not only in the place referred to below, but continually throughout his works, particularly on Matt. 6. § 2, where this is the sense of his comments on that petition, “Lead us not into temptation”: “It is abundantly evident, from most express testimonies of Scripture, that God, occasionally in the course of His providence, puts both elect and reprobate persons into circumstances of temptation, by which temptation are meant not only those trials that are of an outward, afflictive nature, but those also that are inward and spiritual, even such as shall cause the persons so tempted actually to turn aside from the path of duty, to commit sin, and involve both themselves and others in evil. Hence we find the elect complaining, ‘O Lord, why hast Thou made us to err from Thy ways, and hardened our hearts from Thy fear?’ (Isaiah 63.17). But there is also a kind of temptation, which is peculiar to the non-elect, whereby God, in a way of just judgment, makes them totally blind and obdurate, inasmuch as they are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” (See also his exposition of Rom. 9.)[end quote]

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[tdidymas]

I only saw JM quote Amos 3:6. He did not elaborate. What do you think Amos 3:6 says?

It's talking about the calamity of war, not moral evil. If God stirs up the Assyrians to raid cities of Israel, God is not instigating moral evil, but rather chastising the nation. Any moral evil done is the responsibility of the Assyrians. It's similar to God sending Joseph to Egypt. Joseph's brothers committed moral evil, but God didn't. This is how I understand the scripture and the reformed confessions, since they say "God is not the author of sin."

 

[Don Maurer]

It's talking about the calamity of war, not moral evil. If God stirs up the Assyrians to raid cities of Israel, God is not instigating moral evil, but rather chastising the nation. Any moral evil done is the responsibility of the Assyrians. It's similar to God sending Joseph to Egypt. Joseph's brothers committed moral evil, but God didn't. This is how I understand the scripture and the reformed confessions, since they say "God is not the author of sin."

I was not suggesting that God uses his power to create moral evil. On the other hand, I am not sure your responses are capturing the theology of the 1689 confession. The issue is of course double predestination.

In chapter 3 the creed says.
"1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.4"

Would you agree that God decreed "whatever comes to pass?" Does this include events like the fall of Adam and the existence of evil? In Romans 9, did God harden Pharaoh's heart? The text in Romans 9 says that "God raised him up." That is not an evil act, but God certainly knew that if he raise up Pharaoh, the results would be a hardened heart. So then, there is a sense that God decrees evil, but does not have any part in it.

So then, I would not view Amos 3:6 as saying that "God participated or instigated evil." But neither would I say "Its talking about the calamity of war, not moral evil." Yet I would agree with the 1689 that God decrees moral evil. What about you?

 

[tdidymas]

I was not suggesting that God uses his power to create moral evil. On the other hand, I am not sure your responses are capturing the theology of the 1689 confession. The issue is of course double predestination.

In chapter 3 the creed says.
"1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.4"

Would you agree that God decreed "whatever comes to pass?" Does this include events like the fall of Adam and the existence of evil? In Romans 9, did God harden Pharaoh's heart? The text in Romans 9 says that "God raised him up." That is not an evil act, but God certainly knew that if he raise up Pharaoh, the results would be a hardened heart. So then, there is a sense that God decrees evil, but does not have any part in it.

So then, I would not view Amos 3:6 as saying that "God participated or instigated evil." But neither would I say "Its talking about the calamity of war, not moral evil." Yet I would agree with the 1689 that God decrees moral evil. What about you?

That quote above, I have to admit I have some problem with, because I can't seem to resolve in my mind how God can "decree" (which I take to mean determine) moral evil, such as a person committing adultery, and God not being responsible, or "the author of sin". I take it that since God established the redemption in Christ as His agenda before creation, that He had to create Adam in such a way that Adam would commit sin (eventually), and thereby condemning the human race with a sinful nature.

However, specific sins committed are said to displease God, and that seems a contradiction with the idea that He determined all sinful acts. The way I read scripture is that God is many orders of magnitude wiser than the whole human race, and in that way He controls all circumstances, even though He might use even Satan in them. And He even takes responsibility for certain acts of Satan, for example, the calamities of Job, and the census of Israel by king David. Nevertheless, God did not directly corrupt Satan or mankind by determining their immoral acts, since He is "not the author of sin." And we know that God is sovereign and in control of all circumstances, even though the apostle John wrote "the whole world is under the control of the evil one." These two aspects of control are fundamentally different.

So this is how I currently resolve the idea that people have a "free will" in the sense that a person is able to choose what is displeasing to God as well as what is pleasing to Him under normal conditions. Under abnormal conditions, this might not hold true. IOW, there might be a situation in which I might be compelled to commit murder, even though I am a Christian and have a desire to please God, and thus do I trust God to protect me from such temptations, as the apostle Peter testifies.

Perhaps that's what the 1689 quote actually means, and perhaps I just don't understand the wording.

But regarding Amos 3:6, I read the context as God warning Israel of their impending chastisement by war with Assyria and ultimate defeat. So when it says that God created the evil, it's talking about calamity, not sin.

 

[JM]

It's talking about the calamity of war, not moral evil. If God stirs up the Assyrians to raid cities of Israel, God is not instigating moral evil, but rather chastising the nation. Any moral evil done is the responsibility of the Assyrians. It's similar to God sending Joseph to Egypt. Joseph's brothers committed moral evil, but God didn't. This is how I understand the scripture and the reformed confessions, since they say "God is not the author of sin."

pdiddymas

You added qualifiers to justify your position, which is philosophical, I read the text as it is.

 

[tdidymas]

pdiddymas

You added qualifiers to justify your position, which is philosophical, I read the text as it is.

You mean as a standalone statement? If so, then you're taking it out of context. If you read the whole book and know when it was written and to whom, then why can't you see my interpretation is correct?

 

[JM]

You mean as a standalone statement? If so, then you're taking it out of context. If you read the whole book and know when it was written and to whom, then why can't you see my interpretation is correct?

Standard man centered theology, again. Nothing new here folks.

 

[Don Maurer]

That quote above, I have to admit I have some problem with, because I can't seem to resolve in my mind how God can "decree" (which I take to mean determine) moral evil, such as a person committing adultery, and God not being responsible, or "the author of sin". I take it that since God established the redemption in Christ as His agenda before creation, that He had to create Adam in such a way that Adam would commit sin (eventually), and thereby condemning the human race with a sinful nature.

However, specific sins committed are said to displease God, and that seems a contradiction with the idea that He determined all sinful acts...............

tdidymas, I question if you understand the 1689. Your posts reflect no understanding of the concept of "
"2nd cause." The term is found in chapter 5 paragraph 2.
1689--> "Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; so that there is not anything befalls any by chance, or without His providence; yet by the same providence He ordered them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."

What that term is talking about is found in the text of scripture. In Romans 9:17 the scriptures says about Pharaoh "for this very purpose I raised you up." So then, what was the action of God? It was raising a ruler to power. That is not an evil thing. God can raise up Hitler, Stalin, Pharaoh, or anyone he chooses and it is not an evil act of God. This is where God's active participation ends. Now when God raised up Pharaoh, he certainly knew Pharaoh's evil nature. He foreknew what Pharaoh would do to the Israelites. Did God try to stop the sins of Pharaoh? or did he just raise him up knowing exactly what Pharaoh would do? More than that, God wanted Pharaoh to do what he did. The rest of Romans 9:17 tells us Gods intentions. He wanted "to demonstrate My powerin you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." God did not participate in somehow magically making Pharaoh more evil (he did not need to do that).

In the text, God has the right to raise up Pharaoh to power for the purposes of judgment. Pharaoh is the "vessel of wrath" (see verse 22) that God is demonstrating his power with. The pot has no right to say to the potter, (verse 20) "why did you make me thus?"

Does God decree evil? Yes! Does he want evil to happen? Yes, for the specific purpose of showing his power in judgment! Evil is not just some unfortunate thing that has God biting his nails in heaven with anxiety because he did not want it to happen.

In your statements, it leaves evil as some purposeless thing that just happens outside the plan of God. God may not participate in doing the evil, but he has decreed that it will happen, and then intends to use it for the glory of his power, judgment, and hatred of evil. In your statements, you have to work so hard at putting spin on Amos 3:6 to defend God and his moral character that you leave out the glory of God in his sovereign decision to bring about the existence of evil and then judge it for his own glory.

Your arguments can sound so much like the man in Romans 9:20 who complains "why did you make me like this?" God's mercy is not equal among all men. He favors some and shows some mercy and others he does not show mercy (see Romans 9:15). I am of the same clay that the Pharaoh was made. Only in Gods sovereign mercy did he make me anything other than a pot fitted for destruction. It is not the clay, we are all a Pharaoh kind of clay, but it is the hands of the potter (divine sovereign choice) that makes the difference and not our free will.

 

[tdidymas]

tdidymas, I question if you understand the 1689. Your posts reflect no understanding of the concept of "
"2nd cause.".................

Don, I'm not sure I misunderstand as much as you think I do, so let me explain.

First of all, Amos is talking about war with Assyria. 3:2 "I will punish you for all your iniquities," in which He is prophesying invasion and defeat, which says in 3:6 "If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble?" When a trumpet is blown, it means that the watchman sees an army coming toward the city. Amos was written approx. 50 years before the fall of Israel (the 10 Northern tribes), and was written to them (primarily), since 3:9 mentions "mountains of Samaria." That it is prophesying war and defeat is clear, since 3:11 says "An enemy, even one surrounding the land, will pull down your strength from you and your citadels will be looted." Therefore, the "evil" that 3:6 is talking about is the calamity of war. So, it seems to me that the verse is not teaching what you seem to think it teaches.

Now, obviously the timing of this invasion must be coordinated with the timing of when God desires to punish Israel. Therefore, God has to instigate when this happens, and yet not be the instigator of the sins committed by the Assyrians. Yes, God is infinitely wiser than all men put together, so God can harden or soften hearts in His time, and He can instill fear or courage in whole nations in His time, in order to determine when that punishment happens. The fact that the Assyrians desired to war with Israel is their own sinful desire, and God knows how to use it for His own purpose and time.

And so it was with the Pharaoh of Egypt. However, here is what you say about that:

God did not participate in somehow magically making Pharaoh more evil (he did not need to do that)

I'm not sure this statement is altogether correct, because it raises the question why did God harden Pharaoh's heart? And a similar question, why did Pharaoh's heart need to be hardened? Certainly Pharaoh had a sinful nature, which God was using to escalate the conflict between Israel and Egypt. I can imagine that the miraculous events were probably instilling fear in the Pharaoh's heart as it was most of the Egyptians. It may have well been the weakness of Pharaoh about to give in to let Israel go, that God hardens (strengthens, instills blind courage) in Pharaoh's heart, because God isn't finished with the conflict.

Prov. 21:1 certainly applies in this case: "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes." So it seems to me that God used the sin of Pharaoh in His way, just as He used the sin of the Assyrians, just as He used the sin of Joseph's brothers, such that things happened exactly how and when He wanted those events to happen. This is how I understand 2nd causes. I don't see God stepping out of the picture and letting the sins of those people run their own course (which is what it seems you are saying in that statement). I see it that God is actively involved in all details of those events.

So, your statement that what I said "leaves evil as some purposeless thing that just happens outside the plan of God" is definitely a misunderstanding of what I am saying. But that's the very thing that your statement I quoted above could lead to. I'm sure you don't mean that, as neither did I.

So this begs the question, do I understand 2nd cause or not? And if I do, then my problem is not with the understanding of 2nd cause, but rather how God sovereignly decrees acts of men without being a participant in the immorality (or unethical conduct) of their sinful acts. I'm trying to avoid determinism, since I think that is going too far, and I certainly don't want to open that can of worms.

 

[Don Maurer]

Don, I'm not sure I misunderstand as much as you think I do, so let me explain.

First of all, Amos is talking about war with Assyria. 3:2 .........(snip)............it seems to me that the verse is not teaching what you seem to think it teaches.

I completely understand the context. You already said this and I saw it. While yes, Assyria is in the context, that misses the point.

And so it was with the Pharaoh of Egypt. However, here is what you say about that:

I'm not sure this statement is altogether correct, because it raises the question why did God harden Pharaoh's heart? And a similar question, why did Pharaoh's heart need to be hardened? Certainly Pharaoh had a sinful nature, which God was using to escalate the conflict between Israel and Egypt. I can imagine that the miraculous events were probably instilling fear in the Pharaoh's heart as it was most of the Egyptians. It may have well been the weakness of Pharaoh about to give in to let Israel go, that God hardens (strengthens, instills blind courage) in Pharaoh's heart, because God isn't finished with the conflict.

When God hardens a heart, he does not need to "instill blind courage." That has to be something you just made up. I seriously doubt that other bible teachers or scholars said something like that... and probably for good reason. That is not how God hardens a heart.

For God to harden someones heart, the only thing he need to do is -----> "nothing." Go back to Romans 1 and the phrase "God gave them over" (Romans 1:24; Romans 1:26; Romans 1:28). How is God "giving them over" used in that context? In Romans 1, God stops restraining sin and the human rebellion. In Romans 1, what God actively does (it is an aorist active verb) and he actively intends for us to fall into greater moral evil. He gives us over to the sin we desire. Read Romans 1:28-32 and just see the list related to moral rebellion. It is a moral corruption. God is giving the natural man over to his own corruption just as he did evil to Israel using Assyria. While the concept of "God gave them over" is that God simply gives our will free expression to our sinful rebellious nature, nevertheless, the verb is active (again, Aorist Active). This is something God intentionally does. It is his decree. It is his decree that a person should be given over to sin, or have a hardened heart. Now God does not have to somehow give a person "blind courage" to rebel. It seems to totally miss the idea of "original sin" and "total depravity." It completely misunderstands the sinful, rebellious and depraved nature of man. The natural man does not need to be emotionally fortified ("instilling blind courage") by God to sin a little more. No, the natural man loves our sin far more than that. Ephesians 2:3 uses the phrase "and were by nature children of wrath." The natural man loves his anger at God and his rebellion, he needs no fortification from God to sin. All this is not to deny that God predestines sin, or decrees that sin will occur, or that God somehow does not want the sin to happen.

Prov. 21:1 certainly applies in this case: "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes." So it seems to me that God used the sin of Pharaoh in His way, just as He used the sin of the Assyrians, just as He used the sin of Joseph's brothers, such that things happened exactly how and when He wanted those events to happen. This is how I understand 2nd causes. I don't see God stepping out of the picture and letting the sins of those people run their own course (which is what it seems you are saying in that statement). I see it that God is actively involved in all details of those events.

So this begs the question, do I understand 2nd cause or not? And if I do, then my problem is not with the understanding of 2nd cause, but rather how God sovereignly decrees acts of men without being a participant in the immorality (or unethical conduct) of their sinful acts.

The phrase "2nd cause" comes from the London Baptist confession of 1689. I am using the term as the authors of that confession used it. Those same authors wrote an entire chapter on the concept of God's decree. There is no contradiction between the concept of "God's decree" and a "2nd cause." If God did not decree evil, why then would a concept of a "2nd cause" even be needed? Are you sure your not talking in circles?

In the first paragraph above I certainly have no objection to God using the sin of the Pharaoh, the Assyrians, or Joseph's brothers for his own glory. Also, I certainly would agree that events happen just as God decree's. Neither am I saying that God just lets people run their own lives. I do not know where you could have read into any of the words I have written to get that I believe anything different?

I'm trying to avoid determinism, since I think that is going too far, and I certainly don't want to open that can of worms.

Sorry, I am not well trained in philosophy and you would be better to talk to the philosophers about determinism. However, it seems painfully clear to me that the bible teaches the decree of God. Let me leave you with a link to the 1689 (link-->) The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689
Please read chapter 3 on the decree of God and look up the verses attached and ponder them. If your problem is with the decree of God, in that you think it violates some principle of philosophy, maybe we can start with the scriptures quoted in that version of the 1689 and discuss those scriptures.

 

[tdidymas]

I completely understand the context. You already said this and I saw it. While yes, Assyria is in the context, that misses the point.


When God hardens a heart, he does not need to "instill blind courage." That has to be something you just made up. I seriously doubt that other bible teachers or scholars said something like that... and probably for good reason. That is not how God hardens a heart.

For God to harden someones heart, the only thing he need to do is -----> "nothing." Go back to Romans 1 and the phrase "God gave them over" (Romans 1:24; Romans 1:26; Romans 1:28). How is God "giving them over" used in that context? In Romans 1, God stops restraining sin and the human rebellion. In Romans 1, what God actively does (it is an aorist active verb) and he actively intends for us to fall into greater moral evil. He gives us over to the sin we desire. Read Romans 1:28-32 and just see the list related to moral rebellion. It is a moral corruption. God is giving the natural man over to his own corruption just as he did evil to Israel using Assyria. While the concept of "God gave them over" is that God simply gives our will free expression to our sinful rebellious nature, nevertheless, the verb is active (again, Aorist Active). This is something God intentionally does. It is his decree. It is his decree that a person should be given over to sin, or have a hardened heart. Now God does not have to somehow give a person "blind courage" to rebel. It seems to totally miss the idea of "original sin" and "total depravity." It completely misunderstands the sinful, rebellious and depraved nature of man. The natural man does not need to be emotionally fortified ("instilling blind courage") by God to sin a little more. No, the natural man loves our sin far more than that. Ephesians 2:3 uses the phrase "and were by nature children of wrath." The natural man loves his anger at God and his rebellion, he needs no fortification from God to sin. All this is not to deny that God predestines sin, or decrees that sin will occur, or that God somehow does not want the sin to happen.

I don't agree that when God hardens someone's heart that He does NOTHING. The text states that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. That is an action. If God did nothing, it would say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (which, by the way is an action). It does say that in several places also. Both actions are taking place, but perhaps not simultaneously, since it's one and then the other.

John 12:40 says "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." These are actions being done to people. God is not doing nothing. If He did nothing to them, it would say that He left them to their own devices, or would say nothing. It would say they did that themselves, but it doesn't say that.

Hardening the heart means to strengthen the resolve against something so as not to give in.

Furthermore, when it says that "God gave them over..." God is giving something here, not doing nothing. An example of God giving someone over to a deception is when He sent a lying spirit in the mouths of the false prophets so that the king and his court would be deceived. If you are trying to say that God giving someone over to something is doing nothing, I disagree. At the very least He withdraws His Spirit from influence, and that is doing something. God is making a decision and taking action even in this case.

Finally, God does take responsibility for peoples' blindness. Just as he took responsibility for Satan's actions against Job, so also He took responsibility for the blindness of the Jews in John 12:40, even though Paul wrote that Satan "the god of this world" has blinded the minds of the unbelieving. Satan is the 2nd cause of it, but God is the 1st cause of it. God doesn't "do nothing" even if His doing is "allowing Satan to do his thing." The people blinded may certainly be blinded by their own rebellion, yet scripture attributes it to both Satan and God.

The phrase "2nd cause" comes from the London Baptist confession of 1689. I am using the term as the authors of that confession used it. Those same authors wrote an entire chapter on the concept of God's decree. There is no contradiction between the concept of "God's decree" and a "2nd cause." If God did not decree evil, why then would a concept of a "2nd cause" even be needed? Are you sure your not talking in circles?

In the first paragraph above I certainly have no objection to God using the sin of the Pharaoh, the Assyrians, or Joseph's brothers for his own glory. Also, I certainly would agree that events happen just as God decree's. Neither am I saying that God just lets people run their own lives. I do not know where you could have read into any of the words I have written to get that I believe anything different?


Sorry, I am not well trained in philosophy and you would be better to talk to the philosophers about determinism. However, it seems painfully clear to me that the bible teaches the decree of God. Let me leave you with a link to the 1689 (link-->) The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689
Please read chapter 3 on the decree of God and look up the verses attached and ponder them. If your problem is with the decree of God, in that you think it violates some principle of philosophy, maybe we can start with the scriptures quoted in that version of the 1689 and discuss those scriptures.

Are you saying that you don't think I understand 2nd cause correctly? That term appears in ch. 3 only once, and is not defined there, so one must surmise what they mean by it through reading the context and the scriptures cited. Are you trying to say that my explanation is not in harmony with the ch. 3 you recommended I read? If this is what you're saying, then why not be specific and tell me how?

And concerning your statement "Neither am I saying that God just lets people run their own lives" it appears to me that when you say that God does "nothing" to harden a person's heart, that there appears a contradiction, don't you think? Doing nothing is letting people run their own lives.

 

[Don Maurer]

I don't agree that when God hardens someone's heart that He does NOTHING. The text states that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. That is an action. If God did nothing, it would say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (which, by the way is an action). It does say that in several places also. Both actions are taking place, but perhaps not simultaneously, since it's one and then the other.

John 12:40 says "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." These are actions being done to people. God is not doing nothing. If He did nothing to them, it would say that He left them to their own devices, or would say nothing. It would say they did that themselves, but it doesn't say that.

Hardening the heart means to strengthen the resolve against something so as not to give in.

We actually have three issues now. First is your faulty reasoning on why the active verb is being used; second is your denial that sin is decreed; third is that you do not seem to understand the 1689.

Concerning the first issue....
Of course the verb is active in John 12:40 and many other texts. I believe, I, myself, already said that in what I posted above. In repeating your answer, it is like you do not grasping what I have already said. You are repeating answers to questions not being asked.

To restate the question, it is now "If" the active voice is being used, but the "method" is the active voice being used. You speculate that the active voice is present because God strengthens the resolve to sin more. How then does God not participate in sin? Your concept is being inserted into the text and that is not in the context or anywhere in the scriptures. Neither is in in the basic definition of the term "harden" as you suggest. Please show me any lexicon that has such a meaning in the term?

The method of hardening, or the method of God's decree to evil is shown in Romans 9:17 the text directly. Romans 9:17 says "For this very purpose I raised you up..." The active voice "I raised you up" is the method of hardening the heart. That is the active power of God. That is the decree of God in action. God could have had Pharaoh born as a pauper in Bangledesh. He could have chosen not to have Pharaoh born at all. He chose not only to have Pharaoh born in Egypt, but he chose to have him rise to power. If Pharaoh had been born a slave, he would have been restrained in power and his ability to sin. Instead, God raised him up to power, wealth, and high position. Pharaoh was put in a position to gratify all his sinful passions and desires. He would not have been in that position if he were born a slave in Bangledesh. It was the raising to power that hardened Pharaoh's heart. God did not need to steel his courage to rebel against God.

Furthermore, when it says that "God gave them over..." God is giving something here, not doing nothing. An example of God giving someone over to a deception is when He sent a lying spirit in the mouths of the false prophets so that the king and his court would be deceived. If you are trying to say that God giving someone over to something is doing nothing, I disagree. At the very least He withdraws His Spirit from influence, and that is doing something. God is making a decision and taking action even in this case.

I think this is what I said about Romans 1. The only difference is that you added the words "his Spirit." Of course since I already said this about Romans 1, I would not take issue here. Of course the idea of God sending a lying Spirit could be discussed a little more, but I think I will comment on what you write below since it could be related.

Finally, God does take responsibility for peoples' blindness. Just as he took responsibility for Satan's actions against Job, so also He took responsibility for the blindness of the Jews in John 12:40, even though Paul wrote that Satan "the god of this world" has blinded the minds of the unbelieving. Satan is the 2nd cause of it, but God is the 1st cause of it. God doesn't "do nothing" even if His doing is "allowing Satan to do his thing." The people blinded may certainly be blinded by their own rebellion, yet scripture attributes it to both Satan and God.

I think there is a difference in Gods action with the blindness of the Jews in John 12:40 and the issue of Job. The Jews were already spiritually blind from birth. God did not need to magically make the blind more blind.

The point about Job I hope we can agree. God should take responsibility for the evil that happened to Job. However, he did not need to magically strengthen the courage of Satan to sin more. God should take responsibility because he spoke to Satan very provocatively when he said "Have you considered my servant Job, there is none like him in all the earth." When Satan then wanted to destroy Job, I do not think God was surprised. God did not have to strengthen Satans courage to destroy Job. Yet God was responsible and was the 2nd cause of it (I am agreeing with you that God was a 2nd cause). But God is not a 2nd cause by strengthening Satans courage.

Are you saying that you don't think I understand 2nd cause correctly? That term appears in ch. 3 only once, and is not defined there, so one must surmise what they mean by it through reading the context and the scriptures cited. Are you trying to say that my explanation is not in harmony with the ch. 3 you recommended I read? If this is what you're saying, then why not be specific and tell me how?

Yes, I am saying that you do not understand the concept of 2nd cause when you first described it as "God gives them courage to sin more." I also recommended you reading the 3ird chapter because of your strait forward denial of the concept of God's Decree." Look at the title to the 3ird chapter.

And concerning your statement "Neither am I saying that God just lets people run their own lives" it appears to me that when you say that God does "nothing" to harden a person's heart, that there appears a contradiction, don't you think? Doing nothing is letting people run their own lives.

OK, there is a sense in which God is doing something, but that "something" is not engaging a persons heart by making them more courageous to sin. When it comes to fortifying sin in a person in any way, God does nothing. The sin is already there in sufficient degree. He does not have to fortify sin.

 

[tdidymas]

We actually have three issues now. First is your faulty reasoning on why the active verb is being used; second is your denial that sin is decreed; third is that you do not seem to understand the 1689.

Concerning the first issue....
Of course the verb is active in John 12:40 and many other texts. I believe, I, myself, already said that in what I posted above. In repeating your answer, it is like you do not grasping what I have already said. You are repeating answers to questions not being asked.

To restate the question, it is now "If" the active voice is being used, but the "method" is the active voice being used. You speculate that the active voice is present because God strengthens the resolve to sin more. How then does God not participate in sin? Your concept is being inserted into the text and that is not in the context or anywhere in the scriptures. Neither is in in the basic definition of the term "harden" as you suggest. Please show me any lexicon that has such a meaning in the term?

The method of hardening, or the method of God's decree to evil is shown in Romans 9:17 the text directly. Romans 9:17 says "For this very purpose I raised you up..." The active voice "I raised you up" is the method of hardening the heart. That is the active power of God. That is the decree of God in action. God could have had Pharaoh born as a pauper in Bangledesh. He could have chosen not to have Pharaoh born at all. He chose not only to have Pharaoh born in Egypt, but he chose to have him rise to power. If Pharaoh had been born a slave, he would have been restrained in power and his ability to sin. Instead, God raised him up to power, wealth, and high position. Pharaoh was put in a position to gratify all his sinful passions and desires. He would not have been in that position if he were born a slave in Bangledesh. It was the raising to power that hardened Pharaoh's heart. God did not need to steel his courage to rebel against God.


I think this is what I said about Romans 1. The only difference is that you added the words "his Spirit." Of course since I already said this about Romans 1, I would not take issue here. Of course the idea of God sending a lying Spirit could be discussed a little more, but I think I will comment on what you write below since it could be related.


I think there is a difference in Gods action with the blindness of the Jews in John 12:40 and the issue of Job. The Jews were already spiritually blind from birth. God did not need to magically make the blind more blind.

The point about Job I hope we can agree. God should take responsibility for the evil that happened to Job. However, he did not need to magically strengthen the courage of Satan to sin more. God should take responsibility because he spoke to Satan very provocatively when he said "Have you considered my servant Job, there is none like him in all the earth." When Satan then wanted to destroy Job, I do not think God was surprised. God did not have to strengthen Satans courage to destroy Job. Yet God was responsible and was the 2nd cause of it (I am agreeing with you that God was a 2nd cause). But God is not a 2nd cause by strengthening Satans courage.


Yes, I am saying that you do not understand the concept of 2nd cause when you first described it as "God gives them courage to sin more." I also recommended you reading the 3ird chapter because of your strait forward denial of the concept of God's Decree." Look at the title to the 3ird chapter.


OK, there is a sense in which God is doing something, but that "something" is not engaging a persons heart by making them more courageous to sin. When it comes to fortifying sin in a person in any way, God does nothing. The sin is already there in sufficient degree. He does not have to fortify sin.

What I found on the term harden:
Strong's: to strengthen, prevail, harden, be strong, become strong, be courageous, be firm, grow firm, be resolute, be sore
Webster: 1: to make hard or harder; 2: to confirm in disposition, feelings, or action
especially : to make callous
An excellent exegesis of the term: NJAB - Did God harden Pharaoh's Heart -- Word meaning.
Another exegesis at: Harden Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary
Yet another: Topical Bible: Harden

I do not see how you can claim that my definition of harden is not correct. All the sources available to me show that my understanding is correct.

Concerning your statement "The active voice "I raised you up" is the method of hardening the heart," I do not agree. God raised up Pharaoh in addition to hardening his heart. You claim "It was the raising to power that hardened Pharaoh's heart," but the hardening of his heart was at specific times, not in a general sense. Therefore I cannot agree with your assessment of this term.

Again, I do not agree with your assessment of God fortifying sin by doing nothing. It seems to me that one must stretch the imagination to read that into the scripture.

Therefore, I am getting a bit weary of this debate, since your arguments are not convincing. If you cannot enlighten me with exegesis over and above your opinions, then I'm done with this conversation.

 

[Paul.]

I’ll have to disagree with your assessment. If Paul had said “will not” instead of “cannot”, your argument would have more force.

You quoted 1 Cor 2:14-15 and it does not say “cannot” in the text.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.

— 1 Corinthians 2:14-15

Cannot is not a substitute for does not. For example

“John will not eat meat”
“John does not eat meat”

Those two sentences differ grammatically in tense and are not a substitute for

“John cannot eat meat”

because cannot indicates ability which is not indicated by will not or does not. The only bible translation I found that has cannot is the GNT translation which says “Whoever does not have the Spirit cannot receive the gifts that come from God's Spirit.” This translation differs from all in both the cannot and the reference to gifts. It is a dynamic equivalence that refers to receiving gifts which is not the same as knowledge so this Bible version provides no support to either of our positions. As such I would have to conclude that my argument does indeed have more force.

There’s more, however.

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
— Romans 8:5-9

Here Paul is beginning the end of the argument started in chapter five about the differences between those in Adam and those in Christ. A summation, if you will. Those in the flesh, the unregenerate, cannot please God. They don’t even want to, because of their hostility towards God.

The text tells us that the the mind set on the flesh is not able to subject itself to the law of God. This was the point of the law. It was given to the Jews to show that no person could fulfil it. Jesus was the only one who could keep all the law of Moses. Breaking one commandment makes someone guilty of breaking all the law as Ja 2:10 states. Because no-one is able to keep all the law of Moses, no-one is able to please God on their own merit. This does not say that people cannot believe on Jesus, the one who fulfilled the law and trust in Him. The hostility towards God is our natural desire against that which is right in God's eyes. The desire for sin is hostility against the things of God. This still does not show that the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action such as repenting at the preaching of the gospel and trusting in what Jesus did for us, has been lost since Adam and Eve sinned.

 

[Paul.]

Correct, the ability to make a choice was not lost in the fall.

Since you agree with my statement, I would therefore expect that you believe (like I do,) people via the ability of free will (as already defined) can choose to repent or not to repent of sin when presented with the good news of Jesus Christ. This would also mean that you do not affirm the T of TULIP. Am I right?

 

[Paul.]

Precisely. . .do you know anyone who is free from all sin?

Since no one is, that would be slavery to sin.

Slavery to sin is like any other slavery, there exists a certain amount of personal freedom--what to like and dislike, what to believe and not to believe, who to trust and not to trust, etc.


My point being that there is a bondage from which we are unable to extract ourselves--sin.

No one has the power to be sinless, in that we are not free.

There is nothing about slavery to sin in the definition that you provided that shows a person cannot choose to repent of sin when presented with the good news of Jesus Christ. That would be an act of free will (the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action.)

Ergo, we cannot say we have complete free will, we have limited free will, which philosophically is called free-agency.

The Bible denies philosophical "free will," and presents philosophical "free agency," to frame it in terms of philosophy.

You also appear to be assuming that bondage to sin occurs from birth rather than a state that people through their own choice to sin, put themselves into. I cannot agree with your free agency conclusion due to the stated objections to your reasoning.

 

[Paul.]

Jesus said "he who sins is a slave to sin."

There is nothing about slavery to sin that shows a person cannot choose to repent of sin when presented with the good news of Jesus Christ. That would be an act of free will (the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action.)

Slave in this context means that a person cannot refrain from sin, and this is the nature of addiction.

You are assuming an addiction from birth. When a person is addicted to something now, it would be faulty logic say they were always addicted to that thing.

Sin is an addiction to disregarding the will of God when making choices.

I cannot agree because the Bible does not say this anywhere that I can find.

So even though a person has a "free will" in the natural sense, in relationship with other people, an unregenerate person does not have a "free will" in the spiritual aspect of his life. It means that his desire for pleasure wins out over his desire to avoid lake of fire judgment. And this is obviously the case for people ignorant of God's will. This is why in 1 Cor. 2 and Rom. 8 Paul says that the natural (unregenerate) man is unable to understand (and thus obey) spiritual things. He is talking about truth in the spiritual realm, not the natural realm.

Even if I assume your interpretation of 1 Cor 2 and Rom 8, your interpretation still does not exclude people from repenting of sin when presented with the good news of Jesus Christ.

The term "free will" in the Biblical context simply means a person doing something without compulsion by law or peer pressure.

By this reasoning Adam did not have free will when Eve gave him the forbidden fruit. Do you think Adam did not have free will as opposed to the 1689 LBCOF?

It does not mean that a person has no compulsion from God whenever God decides to strongly influence them to do something. My objection to the "free will" idea is that it assumes that the will of an unregenerate person is completely neutral to any compulsion from God,

So you are arguing that Adam and Eve did not have free will prior to the fall and that the 1689 LBCOF is wrong in describing them as having the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action?

and that they actually have the wisdom to correctly discern the value of the gospel, and that they choose on their own, without God's help, to believe and obey the gospel.

The gospel in and of itself is a grace of God with the power to show people the truth.

But I disagree with that idea, based on the verses I cited, and Eph. 2:5 is clear about the level of God's compulsion on a person who becomes a believer.

The choice and act of God to make a person who is dead in transgression, alive in Christ does not show that man does not have the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action prior to being alive in Christ.

And claiming that a "given moral action" can be done by anyone implies an assumption that all moral actions can be done by anyone at all times, which is a fallacy.

I claim to read. Using your reasoning, this implies that I can read all books that are written irrespective of their language. The argument does not logically follow.

 

[Paul.]

"Hard determinism" is a philosophical idea. I believe scripture which teaches,

All beliefs about what we think the Bible is affirming can be classified. It is the same argument people use when then they believe in the triune nature of God but object to being called a Trinitarian because they also argue they just believe the Bible so labels don't apply to them either.

Do you believe God could not create a universe where Adam and Eve had a choice to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action?

God will make "peace, and create evil" after all, "shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" And spare me the Hebrew gymnastics, however you translate the Hebrew God did it. Further reading.

Since the majority of Bible translations do not affirm translating the phrase as God creating evil, I do not have to do any Hebrew gymnastics. Or do you consider the KJV to be the correct or most correct translation. Ironically, it was James White's work which convinced me that this was a false position to take.