Difference between hearts of stone and flesh

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Was he a prophet or something? Or maybe a wannabe at least?

He was the statue of the Philistine god that got a visit from the Ark of the Covenant at the end of the age of judges. He was a neverwillbe at most.

 

[fhansen]

He was the statue of the Philistine god that got a visit from the Ark of the Covenant at the end of the age of judges. He was a neverwillbe at most.

I see. In that case he's one of those I have studied-quite awhile go though admittedly. So, is his example supposed to somehow relate to those who support God's sovereign judgment that man's will should play some role in his salvation?

 

[fhansen]

When you said, of the heart of flesh, “It can embrace goodness, light, faith, hope, love; it can embrace God,” the implication was that the heart of stone could not do those things.

It cannot. But man still doesn't have to accept any gift of grace. He can resist God's overtures; he can keep his heart of stone, or take it back later on down the line if he so prefers.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I see. In that case he's one of those I have studied-quite awhile go though admittedly. So, is his example supposed to somehow relate to those who support God's sovereign judgment that man's will should play some role in his salvation?

Oh is that the subject, it says to me that if He can’t get the children to do it He’s perfectly capable of doing it Himself.

 

[Hammster]

It cannot. But man still doesn't have to accept any gift of grace. He can resist God's overtures; he can keep his heart of stone, or take it back later on down the line if he so prefers.

What? The heart of stone, using your definition, would never even consider changing.

 

[fhansen]

Oh is that the subject, it says to me that if He can’t get the children to do it He’s perfectly capable of doing it Himself.

God is sovereign-and in no need of anything from His creation. But he loves man immensely and knows what's best for him-and wants what's best for him. And so structures things accordingly, by His wisdom.

 

[fhansen]

What? The heart of stone, using your definition, would never even consider changing.

God can stir and move us to change and cooperate. And yet we can still resit. And regeneration is both an event and a life-long process of strengthening and confirming that event, that justice that has been given us as we're made new creations...or not. We can reject, forfeit, and lose that state of justice, that justification.

 

[Hammster]

God can stir and move us to change and cooperate. And yet we can still resit. And regeneration is both an event and a life-long process of strengthening and confirming that event, that justice that has been given us as we're made new creations...or not. We can reject, forfeit, and lose that state of justice, that justification.

Which heart gets stirred?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

God is sovereign-and in no need of anything from His creation. But he loves man immensely and knows what's best for him-and wants what's best for him. And so structures things accordingly, by His wisdom.

I believe the subject of the timeframe from my reference was at the point of bringing Him into the battlefield. Off-topic I’m sure.

The only Old Testament correlation is between the captain of the Lord’s army and the Captain of salvation having or needing different hearts? Just a shot in the dark.

 

[fhansen]

Which heart gets stirred?

Our hearts get stirred; we cannot move towards Him without His stirring. But we can still refuse to be stirred. It may seem like a subtle distinction but in any case evil/sin, opposition to God's will, could not even exist in His creation unless for this freedom. And reconciliation and salvation cannot occur unless for His grace, His moving us towards Himself. But man's basic nature with his freedom remains, however compromised and weakened by the Fall, and God's patient workings with man through the centuries and His working in us now have never had the purpose of destroying or denying that freedom that He granted in the beginning but rather of appealing to and eliciting it to be used in the right way, in alignment with His will. Again, He's prepared us, He's educated us; He's the Potter who's not, merely and reluctantly, saving a part of His otherwise worthless wretches known as human beings but rather who's producing something, molding something of higher value than He started with, knowing the beginning from the end and having the big picture in mind that we can now only begin to understand in part.

And a major aspect of that "something" is our own participation, however weak at first, beginning with faith, a response to grace that is both a gift and a very human act. That movement, that choice, is the basis of man's justice, that which makes him right in God's eyes as it establishes the vital, life-giving connection or union with Him that we were made for, that constitutes the right order of things for man. So right now, in this world, our job is to begin to come to recognize our need for God, and this life is a perfect school for us to learn of that need the hard way, by the experience of life in a world effectively separated from Him, the life that Adam desired, that he thought would be better. He was wrong and we're here to find that out, and, again, our personal experience along with revelation/knowledge and grace all help serve to bring us to that point. He calls; we respond...or not. Or not now, maybe later. We're an obstinate bunch but someday "every knee shall bow"-and remain bowing, willfully, out of the love that has been wrought in their hearts as they've learned the perfect rectitude of that love and of His worthiness of it. God wants us to love as He does: freely, intensely, knowing why, worshiping in Spirit and truth, even as this is not fully realized until the next life, but having finally chose good over evil as we've come to distinguish between the two, having chose Him who, alone, can bring triumph over that evil.

If not for the necessity of humans coming to learn these things for themselves this whole post-Edenic drama of human history that's being played out, up to and including Christ's passion, sacrificial death, and resurrection and through to this day, would have no real purpose; God might as well have just stocked heaven with the elect and hell with the rest from the beginning.

 

[Hammster]

Our hearts get stirred; we cannot move towards Him without His stirring. But we can still refuse to be stirred. It may seem like a subtle distinction but in any case evil/sin, opposition to God's will, could not even exist in His creation unless for this freedom. And reconciliation and salvation cannot occur unless for His grace, His moving us towards Himself. But man's basic nature with his freedom remains, however compromised and weakened by the Fall, and God's patient workings with man through the centuries and His working in us now have never had the purpose of destroying or denying that freedom that He granted in the beginning but rather of appealing to and eliciting it to be used in the right way, in alignment with His will. Again, He's prepared us, He's educated us; He's the Potter who's not, merely and reluctantly, saving a part of His otherwise worthless wretches known as human beings but rather who's producing something, molding something of higher value than He started with, knowing the beginning from the end and having the big picture in mind that we can now only begin to understand in part.

And a major aspect of that "something" is our own participation, however weak at first, beginning with faith, a response to grace that is both a gift and a very human act. That movement, that choice, is the basis of man's justice, that which makes him right in God's eyes as it establishes the vital, life-giving connection or union with Him that we were made for, that constitutes the right order of things for man. So right now, in this world, our job is to begin to come to recognize our need for God, and this life is a perfect school for us to learn of that need the hard way, by the experience of life in a world effectively separated from Him, the life that Adam desired, that he thought would be better. He was wrong and we're here to find that out, and, again, our personal experience along with revelation/knowledge and grace all help serve to bring us to that point. He calls; we respond...or not. Or not now, maybe later. We're an obstinate bunch but someday "every knee shall bow"-and remain bowing, willfully, out of the love that has been wrought in their hearts as they've learned the perfect rectitude of that love and of His worthiness of it. God wants us to love as He does: freely, intensely, knowing why, worshiping in Spirit and truth, even as this is not fully realized until the next life, but having finally chose good over evil as we've come to distinguish between the two, having chose Him who, alone, can bring triumph over that evil.

If not for the necessity of humans coming to learn these things for themselves this whole post-Edenic drama of human history that's being played out, up to and including Christ's passion, sacrificial death, and resurrection and through to this day, would have no real purpose; God might as well have just stocked heaven with the elect and hell with the rest from the beginning.

You cleverly avoided answering the question.

Which heart is God working on, the heart of stone or the heart of flesh?

 

[fhansen]

You cleverly avoided answering the question.

Which heart is God working on, the heart of stone or the heart of flesh?

The heart of stone. So how have I done anything other than clarify the question at hand, cleverly or not?

 

[Hammster]

The heart of stone. So how have I done anything other than clarify the question at hand, cleverly or not?

Let’s recap

When you said, of the heart of flesh, “It can embrace goodness, light, faith, hope, love; it can embrace God,” the implication was that the heart of stone could not do those things.

It cannot. But man still doesn't have to accept any gift of grace. He can resist God's overtures; he can keep his heart of stone, or take it back later on down the line if he so prefers.

So you have a heart of stone which cannot be stirred being stirred. It cannot embrace goodness, light, faith, hope, love; it can embrace God,

 

[Olmhinlu]

I think a heart of stone is incapable of desiring to do the will of God (e.g. to repent), and that it has to be changed by God because such a heart cannot change itself (any more than a blind man could will to see or a dead man could choose to be born again).

 

[fhansen]

So you have a heart of stone which cannot be stirred being stirred. It cannot embrace goodness, light, faith, hope, love; it can embrace God,

It's not totally dead. Again, fallen man is also characterized as lost, sick, asleep. So He stirs, but we can refuse the heart transplant. Again, God seeks, draws, wants our participation, even if it's 95% Him at first and 5% us, and even if that only acknowledges our ability to still say no. Then even later the transplant may not take-again because of our role. So the believer is continuously admonished to strive, to persevere, to be vigilant, to make his calling and election sure, to remain in Christ, refrain from sin, wash ones robes, live by the Spirit, etc, because "if through the power of the Spirit you put to death the deeds of your sinful nature, you will live"-Rom 8:13.

 

[Hammster]

It's not totally dead. Again, fallen man is also characterized as lost, sick, asleep. So He stirs, but we can refuse the heart transplant. Again, God seeks, draws, wants our participation, even if it's 90% Him at first and 10% us. Then even later the transplant may not take-again because of our role. So the believer is continuously admonished to strive, to persevere, to be vigilant, to make his calling and election sure, to remain in Christ, refrain from sin, wash ones robes, live by the Spirit, etc, because "if through the power of the Spirit you put to death the deeds of your sinful nature, you will live"-Rom 8:13.

The heart of stone isn’t really stone. That’s what I have to conclude.

 

[Hammster]

I think a heart of stone is incapable of desiring to do the will of God (e.g. to repent), and that it has to be changed by God because such a heart cannot change itself (any more than a blind man could will to see or a dead man could choose to be born again).

Pretty much. Apparently some are thinking it’s more like a heart of mud. Or maybe clay. But I think the imagery is pretty clear.

 

[fhansen]

The heart of stone isn’t really stone. That’s what I have to conclude.

There's lots of figurative language and literary devices employed in the bible. That's why we must read the whole thing-and consider the historical understanding of the churches in the east and west that originally received the gospel as well. And going by Scripture alone, believers often disagree on this very issue.

In any case I agree that we won't wish to cooperate with God without His grace, His stirring; I only maintain that we can still resist even that.

 

[Hammster]

There's lots of figurative language and literary devices employed in the bible. That's why we must read the whole thing-and consider the historical understanding of the churches in the east and west that originally received the gospel as well. And going by Scripture alone, believers often disagree on this very issue.

In any case I agree that we won't wish to cooperate with God without His grace, His stirring; I only maintain that we can still resist even that.

There’s no reason to consider anything outside of scripture. Otherwise we end up with strange doctrines.

I’ll stick with scripture. In scripture we can see that we are dead to sin.

 

[fhansen]

There’s no reason to consider anything outside of scripture. Otherwise we end up with strange doctrines.

I’ll stick with scripture. In scripture we can see that we are dead to sin.

Interesting; I've never sen more strange doctrines, false gospels, and division caused by anything outside of varying interpretations of Scripture, as is evidenced on these very forums. The most ancient churches, despite centuries of virtual isolation, maintain strikingly consistent teachings on the main points of the faith.