Double Predestination/Predestinarianism

[abacabb3]

Aren't we talking about doubt predestination here?

 

[cubanito]

Cubanito, it's great that you are continuing to post here.

You pose thoughts that are far beyond my comprehension such as mathematical proof of God, I know I need no visible proof or equation of physics to tell me Christ is my Saviour as the Holy Spirit has imparted that knowledge to me.

Question, God is omnipotent, yes? Is there anything He cannot decree?

Obviously the written Word will stand forever, but could He turn back time for instance?

Thank you for dialogue which is respectful. I have on various occasions experienced worse on this subforum which is why I went away and hang out mainly with the fundamentalists (who occasionally call me satanic and report me, but hey, better than I have received here in the past). Intriguing is among the nicest words used by my brothers, and you ARE my brothers. I had another assistant pastor, he's dead to his body and alive to Christ now, who said my theology was like the Frankenstein monster. Dead pieces of different conflicting heresys stitched together, zapped by a million volts of exitement and IT LIVES!

God can turn back time if He chose, and in fact, He may be doing it trillions of times a nanosecond just inside each star, but that's again something that while mathematically and experimentally verifiable, NOBODY quite understands except God.

Or put in an old historical manner, God can make a stone to heavy for Him to lift, and then He can go ahead and lift it without contradicting Himself. I deny that the way our minds think, that the rules of logic, impose any barrier to God. In a somewhat more contemporary historical vein, in the big debate between van Til and Gordon Clark, which most everyone including me believes van Til lost, I side with the now also dead of the body but alive to God Dr Cornelius van Til. Not just because Cornelius was the name of my favorite character from the Planet of the Apes movies, and also a nice Biblical gentile reference, but because van Til was correct. WE CAN NOT BIND GOD BY LOGIC, the logos of John 1 is NOT synonymous with logic, no matter how many followers of Dr "flash Gordon" Clark think he turns into Superman at the sight of a phone booth. There are very few phone booths left anyway. The reason van Til lost is that he did not know math or physics, not even creation follows the laws of logic!

As to the written word standing forever, it does not. Jesus Christ predicted the demise of perfect OT transmission at the end of the Beatitudes. Most people think

Mat 5: 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [h]the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Means God's written word will somehow remain absolutely intact. WRONG, read that word UNTIL and you will understand Christ was saying the opposite: the OT WOULD suffer textual corruption after all the law was fulfilled, which He did.

If you think my denial of the perfect transmission of Scripture is shocking, go read some more. About the only people who hold to this error are the KJV only crowd, and they are REALLY messed up.

Now, does any of my sophistric philosophizing, my crafty words and torturing names to create what is funny to me only matter? Does my high IQ, wide ranging education and former professorship of medicine make me too sexy to anyone except my wife (who loves when I talk to her in fancy schmaltzy words)?

No, not really. The fact is I was brought out of agnosticism into Life by a moron. A mentally [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] teenager was used by God to bring me to the Kngdom. I am an arrogant man. That is why I had to want what a medically certifiable idiot had before God would bring me in.

Oh I love to debate and so on; but never, NEVER can I rise higher than "Jesus Loves me, this I know. For the Bible tells me so."

Now that I've spent most of this post praising myself, let's get back to the central agument.

From God's perspective, which is the only Absolute Truth, it is TULIP all the way. From man's perspective, it is a choice, Grace is resistable and so on. Obviously this is not logical. I deny logic applies here. Does that mean I deny truth altogether and cast myself in the typical subjectivism of current Western sophistry? NO, not at all. It just means I know where the edge is on my sandbox, and I do not pretend I can out think God.

Oh, let me leave you with a zinger. RC Sproul said in one of his tape series (Foundations?) that God does not exist. Well, RC Sproul is wrong. God does exist now, but He did not always exist. In fact, God began to exist 2,000 years ago at the incarnation (OK with some temporary cameo theophany appearances). Before that, God is. God did not use to exist, but He always is. Put that in your logic pipe and smoke it.

JR

 

[Edward65]

Aren't we talking about doubt predestination here?

Yes we were but we got side-tracked and started discussing atonement. The thing is the majority of those who believe in double predestination also believe in limited atonement and think that double predestination somehow requires belief in limited atonement when that just simply isn't the case. Luther for instance held to double predestination and to unlimited atonement and didn't see any inherent contradiction between the two.

 

[abacabb3]

Yes we were but we got side-tracked and started discussing atonement. The thing is the majority of those who believe in double predestination also believe in limited atonement and think that double predestination somehow requires belief in limited atonement when that just simply isn't the case. Luther for instance held to double predestination and to unlimited atonement and didn't see any inherent contradiction between the two.

I believe in limited atonement personally, but I don't think the issue really affects the idea of monergism.

 

[JustAsIam77]

Cubanito, I agree with Twin, you are 'intriguing'. I also think you are a TULIP believer.

God has always existed, that used to bend my mind as a child, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty".

You are wrong brother about the Word not remaining intact,

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away".

I'm glad you continue to post here.

 

[Alfred Persson]

abacabb3's words in blue font

Mine in black. I'm defending Mark Keilar's view of passive hardening, but will leave my rejection of double predestination for another post.

Scientists create computer models that should reproduce observed reality IF the program's premises are true.

A computer model programmed according to active hardening would not reproduce the contradiction against that theory we see in Scripture.


And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. (1Jo 2:2 NKJ)


16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (Joh 3:16-19 NKJ)

That proves neither active hardening or Reprobation are taught in scripture.

“The Biblical view of predestination is that God simply chooses to leave the non-elect alone,” says Mark Kielar. “And He leaves them to themselves regarding salvation. He offers them a chance to obey, He offers them the Gospel, but He does not intervene in their hearts and souls in any supernatural way.”

By saying this, Kielar hopes to toe a middle line that protects God from charges of being the author of evil, but also maintains the clear reading of Romans 9:18, which states:

So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

Now, if God literally goes out of His way to have mercy on a sinner that by nature cannot choose faith on his own, what we have is non-controversial Calvinism. However, if God goes out of his way to harden a person’s heart, we have highly controversial “hyper-Calvinism.”

Is this warranted? We will have to see whether the Scripture states whether God takes an active role in saving but a passive role in hardening, or rather an active role in both.

To passively harden someone, according to Kielar, all God has to do is turn him over to the evil inclinations already in his own heart. In effect, God hardens by not hardening at all, but letting the person harden himself. He then posits that God restrains evil in the world and when God wants to judge the unrighteousness of men, he simply gives them “a longer leash” so that they essentially fall into the pit they dug for someone else to fall into (Prov 26:27, Prov 28:10).
This theology is to me clearly not supported in Scripture.

But it is expressly stated, God said to Moses he withholds mercy or compassion, that is passive.

13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."
16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. (Rom 9:13-16 NKJ)

First, it goes against the clear implication set forth in Romans 9 and several other passages.

Paul's words in chapter nine require the content of Chapter 11 for correct understanding. Everything said about hardening, vessels of wrath fitted to destruction serve the purpose of revealing God in this world, not to establish eternal destiny:
32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! (Rom 11:32-33 NKJ)

The remnant of Israel Paul spoke of, refers to those who believe in this world, without prohibiting they can believe in the world to come:

5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. (Rom 11:5 NKJ)

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
26 And so all Israel will be saved[/b[, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins."
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience,
31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. (Rom 11:25-32 NKJ)

"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. (Mat 12:32 NKJ)

In context speaking against the Son of man necessarily includes rejecting His claims. Hence they can be forgiven for dying in unbelief.


Therefore, any "hardening" to create vessels of wrath fitted for destruction [in this life] serve God's purposes now, and not establishment of eternal destiny.


Let me briefly give an overview of the whole of Scripture. When God chose Nebuchadnezzar by name and “rose” him up to exercise judgment on Israel, this seems to me very intentional on God’s behalf. Further, the idea of raising the Assyrians, Neo-Babylonians, Persians, and a plethora of nomadic groups in the book of Judges does not seem very passive. It seems that the Bible is asserting God takes a very active role in history.

"Does not seem very passive" is not proving it is not passive. Actively restraining all negative effects on these empires so they prosper, "building a hedge around them" as it were, can easily explain their rise to power. Of course, left to their own evil desires, they would do whatever they willed to do, and God knew those choices would serve His plan. Passive only applies to "no hardening energy" flowing from God to the heart of these individuals, not actively "protecting them from harm all around them."

Further, Romans 9 states:

There was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
As I noted above, withholding mercy and compassion is passive hardening, not active.
Moreover, Paul states election is before they had done "good or bad" contradicts any suggestion Election is relevant to their works affecting God's plan. Rather, Paul digresses to remind all election isn't according to works He foresaw they would do.

Having clarified that:

So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

We walk away with two clear implications. God decides before we are born who He has compassion for and who He hates. I did not invent the idea of God hating anyone, that is what the Scripture says. So, if God hates someone, it isn’t so mind blowing if God takes an active role in hardening the man, it would seem.

Many understand this "love" and "hate" is relative to what God does for them, and not emotional hate (cf. Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25):

The force of μισέω should not be exaggerated (cf. p 545 Murray); its meaning is determined by the fact that it stands as the antithesis of ἀγαπάω—a familiar antithesis in Jewish writing (Deut 21:15; 22:13; 24:3; Judg 14:16; and regularly implied in the wisdom literature—e.g., Prov 13:24; 15:32). “What is meant is not so much an emotion as a rejection in will and deed” (G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., tr. G. W. Bromiley Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 4:687; cf. Leenhardt, Kuss); cf. the targums of Mal 1:2–3 in Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3:267.- Dunn, J. D. G. (1998). Romans 9–16 (Vol. 38B, pp. 544–545). Dallas: Word, Incorporated

As the Election isn't predicated upon their works, there is no grounds for actively hating based on deeds. There are no other grounds for God to emotionally hate someone, as "there is no partiality with God."
6 who "will render to each one according to his deeds":
7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-- indignation and wrath,
9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;
10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God. (Rom 2:6-11 NKJ)

The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work (1Pe 1:17 NKJ)

Therefore, this "hate" does NOT imply "active hardening", its not emotional at all. God hates by declining to build a hedge, He loves by building one.


Further, the idea of God raising up Pharaoh and the that “He hardens whom He desires” seems to imply an activity, not a passive “by hardens, I mean, he leaves people to their own devices and then they harden themselves.” After all, the Scripture states the fact that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex 8:15, Ex 8:32) and that God did as well (Ex 4:21, Ex 7:3, Ex 9:12, etc.) There would be no need for the Scripture to have this differentiation if God was merely allowing Pharaoh to harden his own heart all along.

A false dilemma, a third possibility is this reveals God's sovereignty in permitting Pharaoh harden his own heart, which accomplish His purposes and not Pharaoh's. Context has the magicians Jannes and Jambres working miracles that confirmed Pharaoh's decision to fight God, gave him the hope of success.

A critical analysis would not conclude one hardening is inconsistent with the other, rather both Pharaoh and God hardened his heart, therefore it must have been a "passive hardening" that allowed Pharaoh to harden his own heart.


However, not everything is what it seems. So, “clear implications” are not convincing in their own right. Do we have evidence that God literally goes out of his way to cause evil to occur to someone in the active sense?

This may surprise some, but the answer is an unequivocal "yes." Our example is 2 Samuel 24:1 where it says:

Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

The parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1 gives us even more insight:

Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.

We have two possible interpretations. The first is that God purposely unleashed Satan, who somehow tempted David to sin by conducting the census (“God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” James 1:13) This interpretation allows God to use Satan to tempt people to sin, but God does not directly do it Himself.

The other interpretation is that “the anger of the Lord” is a personification for Satan, so it should be translated “the Anger of the Lord.” I think this is incorrect, because the word “Lord” used in 1 Samuel is YHWH and it would be a title used for Satan that is found nowhere else in the Bible. In fact, whenever the term is used it refers to God Himself, not to a secondary agent. This interpretation, though strange, is theoretically possible.

It is sophistry to claim God innocent of tempting with evil, because He commands Satan do it for him.

However, your argument is a false dilemma. A third possibility and more likely possibility is the parallel text in1 Chronicles 21:1 is how 2 Samuel 24:1 was meant:

And the Lord caused his anger to burn forth again in Israel, and Satan stirred up David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Juda. (2Sa 24:1 LXE)

And the anger of Jehovah addeth to burn against Israel, and an adversary moveth David about them, saying, 'Go, number Israel and Judah.' (2Sa 24:1 YLT)

Other translations allow David is being "moved" by someone other than God:

And again was the anger of Yahweh kindled against Israel,--so that he suffered David to be moved against them, saying, Go, count Israel and Judah. (2Sa 24:1 ROT)

God was angry, and did not stop Satan from inciting David number Israel. That is, He refused to build a hedge around David regarding this, hence passively permitting the event.


However, we have two reasons to doubt the second interpretation aside from its strangeness. First, “the Tempter” is a name for Satan in Matt 4:3 and 1 Thes 3:5, which accords with the first interpretation that God does not directly tempt anyone, but Satan can tempt someone to sin from the desires in his own heart. We may conclude that though God tempts no one to sin, there is not contradiction in that Satan does.

Second, in the book of Job Satan accuses God of putting a “hedge” (Job 1:10) around Job, in effect protecting Job from demonic assaults. God, to test Job’s resolve, purposely removes the hedge (Job 1:11, 12). God says specifically to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.”

God can literally constrain Satan and place certain measures of power in his hand. This obviously is not passive at all, and while it is not active in the sense that God causes people to do evil, the obvious answer is that God can cause Satan to tempt a man to do evil. Ultimately, the responsibility is with the man not to give into temptation to sin when tempted, like David did when conducting the census. For this reason, Christians pray "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one." Men need help from God to "resist the devil" so that "he will flee from you" (James 4:7).

Because the preceding is true, Kielar’s middle-road for double predestination fails. However, double predestination rings true that in an active sense, God has compassion on whom He wants and He hardens whom He wants. It just appears that He hardens through a secondary cause, so God is active in doing it, but not directly responsible. However, being that He dispatches the secondary cause, He is ultimately responsible and sovereign over all things.

There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. (1 Cor 12:6)

Indeed, all things as absolutely everything, somehow.

___


To read the original post click here.



1 Corinthians 12:6 is irrelevant to the question of hardening unbelievers, the reference is to God's working in the church:

5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: (1Co 12:5-7 NKJ)

Double Predestination is thought to be the logical corollary of predestination, but that contradicts salvation is by grace through faith by an impartial God.

If you are interested in that discussion, see my post in the Apologetic Forum:


Its time sola scripturaists cast off Catholic traditions about hell
http://www.christianforums.com/t7811337/#post65224005

 

[abacabb3]

I am going to give your reply careful consideration, because I still need to finsih my reading of Augustine and Propser of Aquataine on the subject. However, two points:

1. Adding words to 2 Samuel doesn't prove your point, it severely undercuts it. If you have to add words to Scripture to substantiate your point, you are probably doing eisegesis.
2. Ignoring the parts of Exodus where God's hardening is differentiated from Pharaoh's own hardening also undercuts your point. BY necessity of your interpretation, you are forced to make the words say something they don;'t (i.e. when God is "hardening" Pharaoh is actually doing the hardening, though this is not what is said.)

So, until these points are adequately addressed, I don't have to get into an exegesis of 1 Cor 12 (who's context I am aware of, but it says "all things" nonetheless) or anything else.

As in Job, we clearly have a God that can control an event by affecting the hedges around people. As I postulate, this is probably how God works through history. Ironically, this was your interpretation as well. So, I feel much of this "disagreement" is needlessly semantic.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I am going to give your reply careful consideration, because I still need to finsih my reading of Augustine and Propser of Aquataine on the subject. However, two points:

1. Adding words to 2 Samuel doesn't prove your point, it severely undercuts it. If you have to add words to Scripture to substantiate your point, you are probably doing eisegesis.
2. Ignoring the parts of Exodus where God's hardening is differentiated from Pharaoh's own hardening also undercuts your point. BY necessity of your interpretation, you are forced to make the words say something they don;'t (i.e. when God is "hardening" Pharaoh is actually doing the hardening, though this is not what is said.)

So, until these points are adequately addressed, I don't have to get into an exegesis of 1 Cor 12 (who's context I am aware of, but it says "all things" nonetheless) or anything else.

As in Job, we clearly have a God that can control an event by affecting the hedges around people. As I postulate, this is probably how God works through history. Ironically, this was your interpretation as well. So, I feel much of this "disagreement" is needlessly semantic.

Given all scripture is inspired (2 Tim 3:16-17) harmonization is the classic approach:

[FONT=&quot]Harmonistic Approaches[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The older approaches are generally harmonistic. The Talmud, for example, appears to read the statement in 1 Chronicles 21:1a[/FONT][FONT=&quot]α[/FONT][FONT=&quot], “Satan stood up against Israel ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]וַיַּעֲמֹד שָׂטָן עַל יִשְׂרָל[/FONT][FONT=&quot]),” as the parallel to 2 Samuel 24:1b, “and he incited David against them ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]וַיָּסֶת אֶת דָּוִד בָּהֶם[/FONT][FONT=&quot]),” rather than 24:1a, “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]וַיֹּסֶף אַף יְהוָה לַחֲרוֹת בְּיִשׂרָל[/FONT][FONT=&quot]),” thus understanding [/FONT][FONT=&quot]שָׂטָן[/FONT][FONT=&quot] as the subject of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]וַיָּסֶת[/FONT][FONT=&quot] - in 2 Sam 24:1b. Many Christian exegetes have followed a similar line of harmonization.-[/FONT] (1989). Trinity Journal, 10(1), 34–35.

So your argument can be turned---"Did I add words, or did you subtract 1 Chronicles 21:1?"

[FONT=&quot]Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. (1Ch 21:1 NKJ)[/FONT]

Against the claim I added words, the Septuagint and Young did nothing improper as the bold font statement in the following confirms:

[FONT=&quot] The Targum is similar to a common theme in Christian harmonizations of these texts, namely, the appeal to the notion of concursus divinus or permissio Dei.11 For example, permissio Dei can be seen in the Geneva Bible notes to 2 Sam 24:1b12 and concursus divinus in Gerlach’s[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]TrinJ[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 10:1 (Spring 1989) p. 36[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]comments, “in both passages the matter is presented simply from two different sides.”13 Jamieson combines all three types of harmonizations to the problem.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]God, though He cannot tempt any man (Jas. i. 13), is frequently described in Scripture as doing what He merely permits to be done; and so in this instance He permitted David to fall into temptation, by withholding His supporting and restraining grace.14 It will be observed that “he” before “moved” is improperly introduced. [[/FONT][FONT=&quot]יָת[/FONT][FONT=&quot] has no nominative; and as this verb signifies stimulated, incited, often in a bad sense, the meaning seems to be that David had been stirred up to the adoption of this measure either by the urgency of some minister, whose evil influence predominated in the privy council,15 or by the suggestion of some worldly and unhallowed passion,16 which had acquired the ascendancy in his own breast.17 [FONT=&quot][1][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So your interpretation is an "outlier" and not the norm in Reformed circles.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As for #2 in your reply, I again harmonized the two groups, consistent with Paul's words in Romans and the context:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]11[/FONT][FONT=&quot] But Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers; so the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 12 For every man threw down his rod, and they became serpents. But Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 13 And Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 14 So the LORD said to Moses: "Pharaoh's heart is hard; he refuses to let the people go. (Exo 7:11-14 NKJ)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]God's permitting Pharaoh's magicians duplicate His sign allowed Pharaoh the delusion he could fight God and win. That is "as the LORD had said" in Exodus 7:3 "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So God harmonized the two "hardenings", a fact you ignored in your thesis. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your interpretation is unusual, ignores God's harmonization in Exodus, and rejects His interpretation (2 Tim 3:16) of this event given in 1 Chronicles 21:1. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Therefore the disagreement is substantial, not "needlessly semantic."[/FONT]

Your last comment about "hedge" was odd, that "passive-active" protection by God is our position, against your "active hardening" argument.




11 The idea of concursus divinus was a central theme in Lutheran orthodoxy. It was an attempt to explain the relationship between divine acts (causa prima) and free will (causae secundae) as one of “concurrence.” See RGG I 1716f. Reform orthodoxy rejected the Lutheran understanding of concursus as irreconcilable with divine causality. In Reformed theology concursus divinus was ultimately based on the immediate and predetermined work of God. In this sense it was the result of permissio Dei. See Heinrich Heppe, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1935) 200ff and L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949) 171ff. For a sense of the difference between the Lutheran and Reformed view note the summarization of the Reformed interpretation of 2 Sam 24:1 by the Lutheran Pfeiffer, “Calviniani hinc inferunt, DEUM instigare s. im-pellere hominem occulte ad peccata” (Augusti Pfeifferi, Dubia Vexata Scripturae Sacrae [Dresden, 1685] 405).

12 “The Lord permitted Satan, as 1.Chron.21, 2 [sic]” (The Bible, That is, The holy Scriptures conteined in the Olde and Newe Testament [London, 15991). Also, Cornellius a Lapide (1568–1637), “‘Commovit’ Deus Davidem, non per se suggerendo el, et dicendo: ‘Vade et numera populum’ (sic enim incitasset eum ad peccatum, quod facere nequit), se permittendo diabolo ad id parato, et anhelanti, ut Davidera ad superbam hanc populi numerationem incitaret. Deus ergo indirecte, diabolus vero directe excitavit Davidem ad hanc numerationem, uti expresse dicitur 1 Paral. XXI, 1” (Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram [Paris, 1889]).

13 Otto Von Gerlach, Das Alte Testament nach Dr. Martin Luthers Uebersetzung mit Einleitungen und erklärenden Anmerkungen (Berlin: Gustav Schlawitz, 1858) 190. Keil remarks simply “In the parallel text of Chronicles, Satan is mentioned as the tempter to evil, through whom Jehovah led David to number the people” (Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950] 503). Curiously, the original Scofield Bible has no comment on either verse. The New Scofield Reference Bible contains the following comment, “It is stated in 1 Chr. 21:l that Satan moved David to do this. Evidently God permitted the devil to influence His servant in order that His own purposes might be carried out.”

14 Concursus divinus.

15 Targum.

16 Kimchi.

17 Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments (6 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945) 3:287.

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] (1989). Trinity Journal, 10(1), 35–36.

 

[abacabb3]

Still, it appears you are working backwards. Ultimately, the thesis I put forward employs a consistent hermeneutic, granted, WITHOUT sifting through the manuscript tradition to find preferred readings, like you are doing. Further, there are examples of GOd hardening the Pharaoh's heart without it being explicit that GOd allowed any events to delude him.

THen we have 2 Thess 2:11, which throws your whole worldview into disarray

Further, I don't understand what you mean here: "Your last comment about "hedge" was odd, that "passive-active" protection by God is our position, against your "active hardening" argument."

I suggest you reread what I wrote. I am not taking a firm position on the matter, my conclusion is what you would define "passive-active." God does not need to harden a man's heart to damn him. A man is damned by sins he will commit be default.

 

[JM]

It seems vogue to confess the "TULIP." It has become the watchword for orthodoxy but from what I've been readin many are simply using Reformed language to express their inconsistent Arminianism. If you do not confess the TULIP in its entirety you do not understand "Calvinism."

 

[Alfred Persson]

It seems vogue to confess the "TULIP." It has become the watchword for orthodoxy but from what I've been readin many are simply using Reformed language to express their inconsistent Arminianism. If you do not confess the TULIP in its entirety you do not understand "Calvinism."

I don't confess TULIP, limited atonement is unscriptural:

2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. (1Jo 2:2 NKJ)

16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Joh 3:16-18 NKJ)

Nor is Arminius right about predestination predicated upon foreknowledge. Both Calvin and Arminius got it wrong.

Election happened in verse 28, not 29:

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Rom 8:28-30 NKJ)

Those God elected according to His good purpose and will, these He foreknew, and these He also predestined.

Only the elect are discussed in that context, not the non-elect. They are irrelevant. Hence reprobation isn't there either.

Election happened before foreknowing them. God already knows all things, without foreknowledge; He doesn't learn the unknown by any process, because nothing is unknown to Him.

Foreknowing is listed as a special act of God, making it different than His omniscience, Calvin's definition not withstanding.

Evidently, God's foreknowing made intimate what was foreknown, put them in front of all else, and He loved them, as seems to be implied in Romans 11:2.

2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. (Rom 11:2 NKJ)

As Election precedes foreknowing and predestination unto salvation, Reprobation is a NOT corollary to their unconditional election. That God elected to ensure those He foreknew would not be lost, it does not follow He thereby prohibited others from being saved by grace through faith in Christ's name.

"If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." (Gen 4:7 NKJ)

For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.' (Mat 13:15 NKJ)

To illustrate, rescuing your family from drowning does not mean you prevented others from waving their hands indicating they too wanted to be lifted up from the water, onto the lifeboat.

 

[JM]

Can anyone decipher that? It's nonsense.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Can anyone decipher that? It's nonsense.

"Drive by" hits are unchristian. Nothing I said is nonsense, its all common sense to those who can think sensibly.

John Calvin defines foreknowledge as "all things always were, and perpetually remain, under God's eyes, so that to His knowledge there is nothing future or past, but all things are present."

And predestination as "God's eternal decree, by which he determined with himself what he willed to become of each man"

Which requires God foreknew events He didn't like happening, so decreed they would occur differently.

The theory God would "disregard" foreknowledge, when electing, makes as much sense as closing your eyes while driving your car.

If foreknowledge played ANY part in Election, then the information was used, not ignored.

Clearly, for unconditional election to exist, election happened before foreknowing the Elect as they are now.

Its not sufficient to say God's reasons are obscure, if foreknowledge was used when deciding whom to elect, then election was conditioned on something foreknown about them.

Its better to say God's choices are not predicated on what we are or do now, now that everything is all screwed up. That is consistent with scripture.

To suggest God wouldn't elect those He knows are His, if no fall occurred, is absurd.

Then predestination makes sense. It was to ensure none of His would be lost, after everything got screwed up.

Then predestination is the means that allowed God proceed, without it resulting in the loss of any He knows are His.

 

[JustAsIam77]

As Election precedes foreknowing and predestination unto salvation, Reprobation is a NOT corollary to their unconditional election. That God elected to ensure those He foreknew would not be lost, it does not follow He thereby prohibited others from being saved by grace through faith in Christ's name.

In my view election, foreknowledge and predestination are all before the foundation of the world, one doesn't precede another.

As far as God not prohibiting the reprobate from being saved, Paul is quite clear when he states, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth". Rom 9:18

 

[Alfred Persson]

In my view election, foreknowledge and predestination are all before the foundation of the world, one doesn't precede another.

As far as God not prohibiting the reprobate from being saved, Paul is quite clear when he states, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth". Rom 9:18

But you ignore Paul also said:

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! (Rom 9:14 NKJ)

If God reprobates eternally according to His good purpose and will, and not according to what the individual is or does, then He is unrighteous.

Paul's reply didn't address that issue, to him it was absurd anyone think that about God, so he moves on to discuss the right of the creator to do with His, as He will.

But we are not clay, we are sentient beings in the image of God given a sense of justice. Therefore, if any apply Paul's argument for God's sovereignty, as an apologetic proving Reprobation doesn't mean God is unrighteous, it fails.

We aren't clay. The argument is irrelevant to the issue.

God has every right to create vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, in order to reveal Himself. As He enables free will, not overpowers it, the "damage" to those vessels of wrath is their own fault.

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. (Rom 9:17-18 NKJ)

...

32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
(Rom 11:32-33 NKJ)

Interpreting chapter 9 without chapter 11 is taking it out of context. The destruction is in this life only, not eternally.

Hence Jesus Christ our LORD says:

31 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. (Mat 12:31-32 NKJ)

Jesus didn't lie, rejecting Christ's claims, speaking against them, is not an eternal sin. If one does not commit eternal sins, then there is space for forgiveness, repentance and belief in His name "in the age to come."

I agree Election, foreknowing, and predestining unto salvation, happened before the foundation of the world, I do not agree God used foreknowledge to elect. He already knew all things, and foreknowing appears as an additional and special act of God requiring it is distinct from omniscience, Calvin's definition equating it with omniscience not withstanding.

Therefore I understand "foreknowledge" as foreknowing all things "after the fall" and then predestining "those who are His" cannot be lost. So it has nothing to do with election, it has everything to do with preservation, ordaining not one child of God, be lost because of the fall, because of anything the devil did. So in a sense, its knowing them before everything else, so they have prominence above all others, like highlighting words in a paragraph. And then predestining them unto salvation, lest any be lost because of permitting the fall.

 

[JustAsIam77]

I only have scripture to go by, I don't presume to question why God has chosen some and not others.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I only have scripture to go by, I don't presume to question why God has chosen some and not others.

I agree scripture is silent on precisely why, good pleasure of His will being undefined. But its too hard to imagine God didn't have reasons for His choices. (So it doesn't mean we cannot speculate).

Its only required those reasons not be found in us now, in who we are or what we do NOW.

(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), (Rom 9:11 NKJ)

I believe God knew all who are His, and also knew what would happen if He created, and permitted the fall, so the argument of the devil could be refuted, empirically. And He decided to create, and permit the fall, for the sake of those He loved, that they come into existence and be with Him forever.

and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, (Rom 9:23 NKJ)


Therefore it was God's good pleasure and will He make it impossible any of His be lost. That is why He predestined unto salvation the Elect. They are His.

But the fall has completely changed us, who we are, and what we choose to do. Therefore, what we are now was overlooked completely by God when Electing. Nothing in or about us NOW was a factor when selecting the Elect.

It does not follow God thereby excluded those He didn't select, to damnation. We all have truly free will, and if any desire it, God will make haste to meet them while they are still a long way off, and save them by grace, through faith in Jesus' name. That's the kind of God He is.

20 "And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him.
21 "And the son said to him,`Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
22 "But the father said to his servants,`Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet.
23 `And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry;
24 `for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' And they began to be merry.
(Luk 15:20-24 NKJ)

As election happened before predestination, predestination has nothing to do with Reprobation either. The non elect aren't mentioned in Romans 8 at all. Its all about the elect. They weren't prohibited from being saved, they just weren't predestined to be saved. The abundance of scripture inviting all to be saved, is more than enough proof they can be saved, if they choose to be.

 

[Alfred Persson]

THen we have 2 Thess 2:11, which throws your whole worldview into disarray

The mystery of lawlessness is spiritism, it inspires the strong delusion. God sends the delusion by "taking out of its way" the ordinance that prevented the full revelation of the man of sin:


3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2Th 2:3-12 NKJ)

Therefore, this is passive hardening, not active which your piece clearly favored.

 

[abacabb3]

The mystery of lawlessness is spiritism, it inspires the strong delusion. God sends the delusion by "taking out of its way" the ordinance that prevented the full revelation of the man of sin:


3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2Th 2:3-12 NKJ)

Therefore, this is passive hardening, not active which your piece clearly favored.

Again, maybe you have anger issues, or an agenda, but without naming ourselves a pro-active hardener or pro-psassive harderned, we have to return to the Scripture. The text of 2 Thes makes clear that using some method God wills men to be deluded so that "they all may be condemned." So, I can bend with "single-predestinationists" and say just because God hardens a heart somehow (I posit the removal of a hedge that protects us from demonic temptation theory of hardening, as I did in my piece) that does not mean God does it to damn people, because often we experience evil so that we may lean and repent (i.e. Job).

However, in this passage, it is clear that the hardening takes place specifically so a subset of people will be condemned and not saved. Granted, God did not need to harden them at all to condemn them, as that is their just desserts. But, look at what was clearly said. Or look at John 12:40-14

“He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.

Therefore, it is unquestionable that God hardens so certain people will not be saved. This is undeniable.

Again, your disagreement may be largely semantic. Do you agree that God wants this people hardened? Do you agree that God does not protect them from the anti-christ, the strong delusion, in 2 Thes 2? Lastly, do you agree that this is something that God is actively working, being that it is God who "will send the strong delusion"?

The inescapable conclusion of Scripture is that God uses evil, but He is not evil. To deny this is to force us to reinterpret every invasion, judgment, storm, and plague that the Bible attributes to God. God uses evil and God means it for good. To shield God from all evil I feel is something grounded not in Scripture but in response to Epicurean philosophy and sources itself from the church fathers, such as Irenaeus.


"For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God should be fulfilled." (Rev 17:17)

 

[Alfred Persson]

Again, maybe you have anger issues, or an agenda, but without naming ourselves a pro-active hardener or pro-psassive harderned, we have to return to the Scripture. The text of 2 Thes makes clear that using some method God wills men to be deluded so that "they all may be condemned." So, I can bend with "single-predestinationists" and say just because God hardens a heart somehow (I posit the removal of a hedge that protects us from demonic temptation theory of hardening, as I did in my piece) that does not mean God does it to damn people, because often we experience evil so that we may lean and repent (i.e. Job).

However, in this passage, it is clear that the hardening takes place specifically so a subset of people will be condemned and not saved. Granted, God did not need to harden them at all to condemn them, as that is their just desserts. But, look at what was clearly said. Or look at John 12:40-14

“He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.

Therefore, it is unquestionable that God hardens so certain people will not be saved. This is undeniable.

Again, your disagreement may be largely semantic. Do you agree that God wants this people hardened? Do you agree that God does not protect them from the anti-christ, the strong delusion, in 2 Thes 2? Lastly, do you agree that this is something that God is actively working, being that it is God who "will send the strong delusion"?

The inescapable conclusion of Scripture is that God uses evil, but He is not evil. To deny this is to force us to reinterpret every invasion, judgment, storm, and plague that the Bible attributes to God. God uses evil and God means it for good. To shield God from all evil I feel is something grounded not in Scripture but in response to Epicurean philosophy and sources itself from the church fathers, such as Irenaeus.


"For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God should be fulfilled." (Rev 17:17)

No anger issues here, no agenda but the truth.

Unfortunately for your exegesis, the text provides the reason the strong delusion had success, making this an example of active but passive hardening:

and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἐδέξαντο, “they did not receive the love of the truth.” Refusal of the truth lays one open to all kinds of error; cf. Rom 1:21–28, where those who reject the knowledge of God have their understanding darkened and are given over “to a reprobate mind” (εἰςἀδόκιμοννοῦν).- Bruce, F. F. (1998). 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Vol. 45, p. 174). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

the expression τὴν ἀγάπην τῆν ἀληθείας οὐκ ἐδέξαντο is designedly chosen to bring forward the high degree of guilt.- Lünemann, G. (1884). Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles Of St. Paul to The Thessalonians. (P. J. Gloag, Trans.) (p. 221). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Had they loved the truth, the strong delusion would not deceive them.

Our difference is NOT semantic, you propose God uses evil to tempt man, a direct contradiction of apostolic doctrine:

13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. (Jam 1:13-15 NKJ)

I conclude your premise "God uses evil, but is not evil" impossible. To illustrate, Hitler never killed anyone, nor could any researcher find a direct order from him to kill the Jews. According to your premise, while "Hitler used evil, he is not evil."

That is sophistry to the Nth degree. God cannot remain guiltless if He causes evil, even if indirectly. BUT He can remain guiltless, Righteous and Just if God allows evil befall those who chose to rebel against His commands. That is justice, not evil at all. The Bible consistently puts the blame for being deceived, upon those who want to be deceived.

Pharaoh illustrates the principle, God allowed his magicians duplicate God's miracles, which resulted in the strong delusion he could rebel against God successfully. While this passive hardening is credited to God, it was Pharaoh's free will decision to refuse God's command:

11 But Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers; so the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12 For every man threw down his rod, and they became serpents. But Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.
13 And Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.
14 So the LORD said to Moses: "Pharaoh's heart is hard; he refuses to let the people go. (Exo 7:11-14 NKJ)

22 Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said. (Exo 7:22 NKJ)

Citing texts that credit God with this hardening, doesn't prove your point because they also apply when God actively hardens hearts passively---by manipulating events that allow the evil preference of those being hardened, to come out.

Birth defects, some blame God for them, I do not because Christ didn't.

1 Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth.
2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3 Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. (Joh 9:1-3 NKJ)


That would have been the perfect time for Jesus to teach "God did it," but He declined. Rather, it didn't happen because his parents sinned, but God permitted it occur that the works of God should be revealed.

In other words, birth defects happen randomly, because of the fall, because we are no longer in paradise. But God permits that, because they serve to prove how miserable we really are, without Him. Also, they sometimes serve His purposes:

10 His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
11 But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given:
12 "For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." (Mat 19:10-12 NKJ)

The same applies to weather, invasions, disease etc, God is not first cause. All things consist in the Word of God (Col 1:17), He makes concrete God's thought, but everything that happens in the "matrix" is via God's concurrence. While its Christ's power that gives all things coherence, He is not the first cause of evil in it, unless its a Judgment against the person(s) for the evil they chose to do. Then God as Judge is fully in His right to punish evil with evil, for it is justice to do so.

Back to the text you cited, you failed to harmonize that with parallel texts blaming closed eyes on those who close them, not God:

15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.' (Mat 13:15 NKJ)

God would heal them, if they didn't close their eyes refusing His healing.

God respects our free will, to do otherwise would be the act of someone who hated us.

Therefore texts showing God hardens hearts are to be understood as working in concert with free will choice, not voiding it.

The last text you cite is Rev 17:17:

16 "And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire.
17 "For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.
18 "And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth." (Rev 17:16-18 NKJ)

These are confirmed enemies of God, they already made the choice to war against Christ. That is the context you left out. God is not making them do anything they don't want to do, He puts it in their heart, but they choose to do it with gusto.

In context, the Harlot is now redundant, the man of sin has set himself up as God, above all called God or worshiped. That rendered the need for Rome's Tower of Babel Magisterium, which leads all the world's spiritistic religion, not only redundant, but in the way of the new 666 religion.

Now we are back to Roman's chapter 9. It is taking it out of context this proves active hardening, Paul says God withheld mercy, not caused evil:

11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),
12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger."
13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."
16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
(Rom 9:11-16 NKJ)

Fact is, Esau was abundantly blessed by God, and had many descendants. But they weren't as blessed as Jacob's, they did serve Jacob's descendants. But Esau himself was blessed with long life, riches and many children. One could almost pray, "May God hate me as He did Esau!

Paul objects so strongly to the suggestion God would cause anyone to be evil, that its categorically dismissed as absurd, defining the hardening as passive, withholding mercy and compassion, but not overriding free will.

Then he transitions to God's right as Sovereign, to make creation serve His purposes:

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, (Rom 9:17-23 NKJ)

If God prepared these vessels of wrath for eternal destruction, then we are back to unrighteousness being with God. Who resisted His will. But that insulting remark, thoroughly rejected in vv. 15-16, is woefully ignorant of the reason God has for doing this. It is to reveal Himself in this age, not the next.

The context and wording refer this destruction to what is manifest in this life, not the next because God is making known His name in this age, not the next. He raised Pharaoh up in this age, to reveal Himself in this age. That puts the destruction Pharaoh was prepared for beforehand, in this age, in the days of Moses.

This is confirmed in Romans 11 where all Israel is saved, even those who died disobedient and went to Hades because of God's hardening. God's impartiality requires what is said of Israel, will also apply to unbelieving Gentiles who died and went to Hades:

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins."
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience,
31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! (Rom 11:26-33 NKJ)

If Pharaoh didn't commit eternal sins, there is possibility of repentance.

Christ Himself confirmed dying in unbelief doesn't result in eternal damnation. There is space in the "age to come" to repent. Of course, persistence in unbelief results in eternal punishment, the second death from which no resurrection is taught in scripture. They then "die the death."

31 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. (Mat 12:31-32 NKJ)

28 "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice
29 "and come forth-- those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
(Joh 5:28-29 NKJ)

13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:13-15 NKJ)


Therefore the context of Roman c. 11, is essential to properly understand Romans 9. A remnant of Jews are saved in this life, while God makes short work upon the earth. But "all Israel" will be saved in the age to come, because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable:

27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.
28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, Because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth."
29 And as Isaiah said before: "Unless the LORD of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We would have become like Sodom, And we would have been made like Gomorrah."
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. (Rom 9:27-32 NKJ)

That is, "all [believing] Israel will be saved", by grace through faith in Jesus' Name. There is no other name whereby men can be saved, no salvation apart from Jesus.

"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Act 4:12 NKJ)

If they don't rise from Hades confessing the Eternal Son of God as their LORD, they won't be found in the book of life, and they will be cast into Gehenna, a terrible place of physical torment, like that of a burning fire, like that of a devouring worm, weeping and gnashing of teeth. And they will deserve it, having gone through fiery torment in Hades, still they persist in disobedience?