That to whom the name "Jesus" refers is in the Bible. That to which the English word "hell" refers -- as well as the mainstream understanding of what "hell" involves -- is not in the Bible.
What the English word refers to and what the Jewish mindset understood are fairly similar.
Human parents are not in control of their children's hearts. Our Divine creator, however,
is. He was the one who hardened Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 10:27), He was the one who bound us all over to disobedience (Romans 11:32-33). See my previous post, #
343 for scriptures that show Who is in the driver's seat in all this. This ties into the popular notion of "free will", which is a myth.
You post about God hardening Pharaoh's heart but ignore the fact that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. "But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said." So there is probably a bit more to that then meets the eye.
And I have reviewed your previous post, and again you take verses out without looking at the whole picture. The Bible says that God does not lead one into sinning, and provides a way out. If we don't chose the way out, it is still there, God still knows the decision, but He doesn't make us not chose the right one. So I'd say the popular notion of free will is more in line with what the Bible actually says.
created them, knowing(not merely hoping) what the outcome of their lives would be.
And I created my child knowing they would lie.
Again, the police, being merely human, are not in control of the hardness or softness of your heart in the matter the way God is. Once more I invite you to read the Scriptures emphasized in post #
343. With power comes responsibility, so an all-powerful deity is, accordingly, all-responsible. God is more in charge than some of the most devout Christians seem to want to believe.
Again I have read that and have posted why that is not a full picture. Since this comes up again and is a common argument, perhaps we can go deeper.
First, the text states that God hardened Pharaohs heart (7:3; 9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8), and the hearts of the Egyptians (14:17). Second, it is said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (8:15,32; 9:34), that he refused to humble himself (10:3), and that he was stubborn (13:15). Third, the text uses the passive form to indicate that Pharaohs heart was hardened, without giving any indication as to the source (7:13,14,22; 8:19; 9:7,35). The questions that arise from this state of affairs are: (1) did God harden Pharaoh on some occasions, while Pharaoh hardened himself on others? (2) Did God do
all the hardening of Pharaoh, with the references to Pharaoh hardening himself being the result of God forcing him to do so against his own will? (3) Are all three declarations given in the text actually parallel expressions that mean the same thing? (4) Are the three declarations distinct from one another in their meaning, but all true in their own respects? Is the God of the Bible an unjust, cruel Being?
...
In his copious work on biblical figures of speech, E.W. Bullinger listed several ways that the Hebrew and Greek languages used verbs to mean something other than their strict, literal usage. He listed several verses that show that the languages used active verbs to express the agents design or attempt to do anything, even though the thing was not actually done (1898, p. 821). To illustrate, in discussing the Israelites, Deuteronomy 28:68 states: Ye shall be sold (i.e., put up for sale) unto your enemies
and no man shall buy you. The translators of the New King James Version recognized the idiom and rendered the verse, you shall be offered for sale. The text clearly indicated that they would not be sold, because there would be no buyer, yet the Hebrew
active verb for sold was used. In the New Testament, a clear example of this type of usage is found in 1 John 1:10, which states, If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him [GodKB/DM] a liar. No one can
make God a liar, but the attempt to deny sin is the equivalent of attempting to make God a liar, which is rendered with an
active verb as if it actually happened. Verbs, therefore, can have idiomatic usages that may convey something other than a strict, literal meaning.
With that in mind, Bullingers fourth list of idiomatic verbs deals with active verbs that were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the
permission of the thing which the agent is said to do (p. 823, emp. in orig.). To illustrate, in commenting on Exodus 4:21, Bullinger stated: I will harden his heart (i.e., I will permit or suffer his heart to be hardened), that he shall not let the people go. So in all the passages which speak of the hardening of Pharaohs heart. As is clear from the common use of the same Idiom in the following passages (1968, p. 823). He then listed Jeremiah 4:10, Lord God, surely thou hast greatly deceived this people: i.e., thou hast suffered this People to be greatly deceived, by the false prophets
. Ezekiel 14:9 is also given as an example of this type of usage: If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet: i.e., I have permitted him to deceive himself. James MacKnight, in a lengthy section on biblical idioms, agrees with Bullingers assessment that in Hebrew active verbs can express permission and not direct action. This explanation unquestionably clarifies the question of God hardening Pharaohs heart. When the text says that God hardened Pharaohs heart, it means that God would
permit or
allow Pharaohs heart to be hardened.
A second equally legitimate explanation for the Exodus text is that the allusions to God hardening Pharaohs heart are a form of figurative speech, very closely associated with metaphor, known as metonymy, where one name or word is employed for another. For example, when we speak of reading Shakespeare, we mean that we read his writings or plays. God hardening Pharaohs heart would be metonymy of the subject, that is, the subject is announced, while some property or circumstance belonging to it is meant. Specifically, under this form of the figure, [a]n action is sometimes said to have been accomplished, when all that is meant by it is that an occasion was given (Dungan, 1888, p. 287; cf. Bullinger, 1898, p. 570).
The Bible is replete with examples that illustrate this figure of speech. John reported that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (John 4:1). In reality, Jesus did not personally baptize anyone (John 4:2). But
His teaching and influence caused it to be done. Jesus, the subject, is mentioned, but it is the circumstance of His
influence that is intended. His
teaching was responsible for people being baptized. Repeatedly in the book of 1 Kings, various kings of Israel are said to have walked in the way of Jeroboam
who had made Israel sin (e.g., 1 Kings 16:19,26; 22:52). But Jeroboam did not force either his contemporaries or his successors to sin. Rather, he set an example that they chose to follow. Judas was said to have purchased a field with the money he obtained by betraying Christ (Acts 1:18). But, in reality, he returned the money to the chief priests and then hung himself. The blood money was then used to purchase the field (Matthew 27:5-7). By metonymy of the subject, Judas was said to have done that which his action occasioned. Paul warned Roman Christians: Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died (Romans 14:15). What he meant was that they should not set an example that lures weaker brothers into doing what they consider to be wrong. Paul told Corinthian Christians that they were in a position to save their unbelieving spouses (1 Corinthians 7:16). He told Timothy that he was in a position to save those who listened to his teaching (1 Timothy 4:16). In both cases, Paul meant that proper teaching and a proper example could influence the recipients to obey Gods will for their lives.
Quoted from :
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2259
There are more than enough explanations to do away with the idea that there is no free will. God's plans will come about, true enough. I need to clean my house now, the way I'd like to do it is have my children help. They won't, but it sure would be easier. At the end of the day though, the house will be clean, they won't get the reward for helping, but my plan will be accomplished.
