Eloquently stated.
The verses of John 6:65, 6:37 and 6:39 are not inconsistent with or contradictory to free will. (literal Greek reads differently…NASB says “And He was saying, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father….” Another literal Greek says “no one is able to come to me unless it has been granted by the Father.”
However, God didn’t cause the people to act.
During biblical times, the manner of writing Scriptures is different from our modern language. Therefore words such as God
granted to them to believe should not be read with our modern perspective. During 2000 BC -to 4000 BC, they won't say they chose to believe God or accept Jesus as saviour. Instead they said that God chose them . Back then, people were subservient to gods or divine beings, and it was not only the Jews, but also Persians, Babylonians and even Chinese in ancient middle kingdom.
Eloquently stated.
Saul to Paul is an illustration of God calling to Saul, and Saul choosing to act upon the calling, and Saul freely acting to “come” to Jesus and God grants what Saul is seeking.
Yes likewise today, God is calling people to repent, but people have free will to reject or believe.
God “weakly actualizes” events. Pharoah is a fine illustration. God did not cause Pharoah to act such that Pharoah had no free choice to act. Rather, God foreknew (I pause here to acknowledge that arguably “foreknew” might have a different meaning from all knowing/omniscient but the Biblical support is relatively week…regardless the label isn’t important but the substance) A.) What and how Pharoah would freely act in response to B.) what God and Moses do such that C) God intervened in a specific way that he knew would have Pharoah freely act in a specific manner as a response).
Egypt was the most powerful empire in the region at that time, and Pharaoh was king and commander of a powerful army. Would such a powerful figure listened to lone ranger Moses who has no army? In Egyptian tradition, pharaoh is a semi-deity. We cannot expect him to fear the Hebrew god when he had never seen the power of Jehovah. So pharaoh didn't like Moses. In Egyptian tradition, pharaoh is a semi-deity. We cannot expect him to fear God when he had never seen the power of Jehovah. As well, Moses was pharaoh's half-brother , a criminal who killed someone many years ago and fled Egypt.
If pharaoh just let the slaves walk, he would be incurring the anger and scorn of his people - so surely he won't? Many Egyptians owned slaves to do household chores. Salves also worked on public projects, probably built roads and pyramids. There was more than 200,000 male slaves according to Numbers. If Pharaoh let them walk free, his people would call him an imbecile for listening to one prophet,
God said to Moses that He would harden Pharaoh's heart. This caused many Christians to mistaken that if Jehovah had not hardened Pharaoh's heart, the latter would let them go. But would he? We need to understand that the Bible asserted God's sovereignty and portrayed God as supreme - this is the way of writing. Unaware of this, today we tend to read the Scripture with a modern perspective.
Before God sent the 10 plagues, the pharaoh did not know the God of the Hebrews and His mighty power. Indeed we cannot really accuse pharaoh of pride - he was only acting human when he refused to accede to Moses' demand.
Above summary is adapted from Understanding prayer, Faith and God's will :
Pharaoh was not aware of God’s power (which means He would not have let the slaves go). However, he was not ignorant of the Hebrews’ belief. Four hundred years earlier, God had told Abraham that his descendants would be enslaved, and after being freed, they would settle in a land of their own. This was the Covenant, which had been passed down from one generation to another. Even the Egyptians would have heard about it from their household slaves. During those times, God did not reveal Himself to the Hebrews much. As they lived out their existence, their faith in Him was not strong. Occasionally, they might burn incense and offer doves as sacrifices, as Abraham did. After six to eight generations – which was almost an eternity to us but not to God – the Lord called Moses to lead them out of Egypt. Even though some Hebrews would look forward to deliverance, many would say that it was just a myth,
When Moses appeared to make the prophecy happen, Pharaoh was defiant – he did not want to be remembered as the one who let the slaves walk away. His resistance was neither unusual nor surprising for any king that was in power. However, the Scriptures did not indulge us with such explanations. Instead, it placed God at the apex and simply said that He hardened Pharaoh’s heart. The Bible depicted God as the cause and did not distinguish between what the He permitted or what He consciously planned. If we understand that this was the manner of writing in religious manuscript, then we will not read these words literally. And if we give thoughts to how any king or politician would normally behave when their authority was challenged, we will realize that God did not have to influence Pharaoh.
After the Lord sent the ten plagues, however, the intense sufferings of the Egyptians compelled Pharaoh to let the Hebrews leave. Soon, however, out of political pressure and personal pride, he wanted to bring them back. Although the horrors of the plagues were still fresh in his mind, yet he could not give up. Pride – a refusal to believe that he could not win – was certainly one reason. However, the more important consideration was political survival. Pharaoh had to act, otherwise his people would mock him for doing nothing. Ministers and members of royal family would say that he was ineffectual, scared, unworthy to rule. However, he knew that to give chase would most certainly spell defeat – it was a predicament indeed.
In the end, Pharaoh made a shrewd decision and led six hundred chariots to pursue the Hebrew slaves [Exodus 14:7]. Whether God sent wind or sandstorm to stop them, he would not be accused of doing nothing. He had to be ready to perish too, but he reckoned that if death was inevitable, so be it; he had to show that he was not cowardly - and maybe he was brave. In the end, he survived while the cohort perished in the Red Sea. People and ministers saw that he did put up a fight, but God was just too mighty. Whether they said he was brave or rash, no one could accuse him of being lame. The chase did not bring back the slaves, but it restored his moral authority to rule – which was most important for him; it might even have been the real intent of the mission.
When the Bible narrates events, it does not delve into explanations or indulge us with details. Instead, everything is condensed into a few passages or verses. We need to consider how things happen at ground level, how people would act. For example: Sarah was angered when Hagar became arrogant when she was able to bear a child for Abraham. Scripture does not tell us how Abraham felt but he must had been in a predicament, feeling confused, upset and torn. Wouldn't it agony to send away someone who carried his flesh and blood? But the Bible does not say all these.
