Who hardened Pharoahs heart and why?

[AnticipateHisComing]

why you are inserting what scriptures where you do is what I am having a hard time following Personally I love scripture, study in depth pretty much so everyday. I do try to take a sabbath where I just "meditate" on the word rather than study to know more and more, but that doesn't always happen. It's pretty cool when God allows your job to be a study of the word, coolest job in all the world. I didn't miss it at all and if you read my post for understanding not for trying to stir a fight, you would have seen that...oh well...moving on.I never once questioned....oh never mind, it is obvious you just want to argue given how badly you are misrepresenting what I am saying, but this kind of inflammatory behavior you are exhibiting is against forum rules and is sinful, so I'm just gonna move on unless you insist on continuing down this road, at which time I will be forced to report you.

REPOST

You made a similar reactionary response to my same post back at your post #52. I really don't understand why you are getting so worked up. You don't need to respond twice to the same post. That is more inflammatory than anything I have posted.

If you really think my posts have been inflammatory than go ahead and report it, but I think the moderator would have more issues with your comments. Your post just called my behavior sinful; you don't worry though, I'm not going to cry to a moderator about it, or even threaten it.

 

[razzelflabben]

REPOST

You made a similar reactionary response to my same post back at your post #52. I really don't understand why you are getting so worked up. You don't need to respond twice to the same post. That is more inflammatory than anything I have posted.

If you really think my posts have been inflammatory than go ahead and report it, but I think the moderator would have more issues with your comments. Your post just called my behavior sinful; you don't worry though, I'm not going to cry to a moderator about it, or even threaten it.

no clue...moving on

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Rom 9 is a hard teaching because many ignore what it plainly says. It uses the simplest analogy, that God is the potter. It reinforces what Exodus says about God hardening Pharaoh's heart. It expounds on it with 24 verses of text. It points out some will have a hard time with it. Some might dismiss it saying you need to read it with a totality of scripture. Paul even thought of this argument, hence the numerous quotations of other scriptures in his discourse on God's Sovereign Choice.

we should dismiss the totality of scripture as you begin suggesting,

reread your words, you said that it was to make excuses for what the scriptures say, to suggest that we needed the totality of scripture to show intent...in fact, I read your post about 4 or 5 times to make sure I didn't read it wrong and even asked my family that was around if I read it right so that I didn't misrepresent. Now it is possible you intended to say something else, but as per your words, I did NOT misrepresent what you said in the post. Please refrain from further false accusations that are only meant to inflame.

Look at my post at the top that is quoted.
Look at your response to it in post 66. I quote only your words that misrepresent what I said. "we should dismiss the totality of scripture as you begin suggesting". In none of my posts have I made such a suggestion that we should dismiss the totality of scripture. I responded to this in my post 70. I guess you need to read a post more than 4 or 5 times. My using the word Some does not represent my thinking. It is often used to refer to others than oneself's. If you followed my argument you would realize that it is a misguided concept that even Paul was prepared to refute.

In your post 78 you deny making a miss-representative statement.

Previously I quoted your words in context and highlighted the incorrect statement you made about my post. Apparently that was too difficult to follow so in this post I only show your miss-representative statement.

 

[razzelflabben]

Look at my post at the top that is quoted.
Look at your response to it in post 66. I quote only your words that misrepresent what I said. "we should dismiss the totality of scripture as you begin suggesting". In none of my posts have I made such a suggestion that we should dismiss the totality of scripture. I responded to this in my post 70. I guess you need to read a post more than 4 or 5 times. My using the word Some does not represent my thinking. It is often used to refer to others than oneself's. If you followed my argument you would realize that it is a misguided concept that even Paul was prepared to refute.

In your post 78 you deny making a miss-representative statement.

Previously I quoted your words in context and highlighted the incorrect statement you made about my post. Apparently that was too difficult to follow so in this post I only show your miss-representative statement.

look, I have no idea why you want to start a fight with me, but I simply won't go there with you...I have already told you I won't be inflamed into a fight, so my suggestion is to get over it. I responded to exactly what you said, I didn't reword anything nor did I misrepresent what was stated...if you intended something different, it is up to you to clarify what your intent was, not my responsibility to guess what you were trying to say. Now, it is beyond time to move forward in the discussion and this is the last time I will ask you to do just that....moving on.

 

[razzelflabben]

Look at my post at the top that is quoted.
Look at your response to it in post 66. I quote only your words that misrepresent what I said. "we should dismiss the totality of scripture as you begin suggesting". In none of my posts have I made such a suggestion that we should dismiss the totality of scripture. I responded to this in my post 70. I guess you need to read a post more than 4 or 5 times. My using the word Some does not represent my thinking. It is often used to refer to others than oneself's. If you followed my argument you would realize that it is a misguided concept that even Paul was prepared to refute.

In your post 78 you deny making a miss-representative statement.

Previously I quoted your words in context and highlighted the incorrect statement you made about my post. Apparently that was too difficult to follow so in this post I only show your miss-representative statement.

Maybe it will help communication to point out the context of this discussion between you and I.

In context, I said that the passage in question needed to be understood in the totality of scripture and then I provided some supporting passages. Your post indicated (not a clue what you intended) that you disagreed and in supporting your opinion you posted the above response which talks about SOME people....so, if I am to read your posts for what they say and not what you want me to guess they are saying, you are saying that I try to use totality of scripture as an excuse to not accept what it says, even though I just said the opposite and showed it...furthermore, you seem to be saying (in context of our discussion) that you are one of those that does not think totality of scripture is important. In an attempt to make sure that I was not reading into the post what was not there, I asked those here how they understood your post. In context of the discussion, they all agreed with my interpretation of your post. Now if you intended to say something different, bravo and I am sorry that was not clear in your post, however, I cannot guess what your intent is without violating a whole bunch of things some sins, some forum rules. therefore I can only base my responses on what your post says unless or until you come to me and say, "you misunderstood, I meant..." which you did NOT do, instead, you began a flaming attack of which I refuse to participate.

that being said, I would love a civil discussion on the topic, but I cannot assume what you mean when your posts say X, I have to assume you mean X, not Y until or unless you clarify.

 

[simonthezealot]

Maybe it will help communication to point out the context of this discussion between you and I.

In context, I said that the passage in question needed to be understood in the totality of scripture and then I provided some supporting passages. Your post indicated (not a clue what you intended) that you disagreed and in supporting your opinion you posted the above response which talks about SOME people....so, if I am to read your posts for what they say and not what you want me to guess they are saying, you are saying that I try to use totality of scripture as an excuse to not accept what it says, even though I just said the opposite and showed it...furthermore, you seem to be saying (in context of our discussion) that you are one of those that does not think totality of scripture is important. In an attempt to make sure that I was not reading into the post what was not there, I asked those here how they understood your post. In context of the discussion, they all agreed with my interpretation of your post. Now if you intended to say something different, bravo and I am sorry that was not clear in your post, however, I cannot guess what your intent is without violating a whole bunch of things some sins, some forum rules. therefore I can only base my responses on what your post says unless or until you come to me and say, "you misunderstood, I meant..." which you did NOT do, instead, you began a flaming attack of which I refuse to participate.

that being said, I would love a civil discussion on the topic, but I cannot assume what you mean when your posts say X, I have to assume you mean X, not Y until or unless you clarify.

I dunno raz his posts are clear to me, it seems you are the one confused and misrepresenting him.
Just saying from an outsiders pov.

 

[razzelflabben]

I dunno raz his posts are clear to me, it seems you are the one confused and misrepresenting him.
Just saying from an outsiders pov.

I appreciate the honesty...in fact, I have considered I am wrong, so let me ask you this...if I say to you that I believe the totality of scripture is vital to our understanding the intent of a passage and give you passages to support what I am saying, and you turn around and say to me that you disagree with me and what I have said, then say, some people try to use the totality of scripture as an excuse to not believe what the word clearly states....what would your interpretation of that comment be? Who do you think he is accusing of not believing the totality of scripture is how we find intended meaning? Would he be referring to some Joe that isn't in the conversation, or to the person he is quoting as disagreeing with?

Then, instead of saying something like, no, you miss understood, I was agreeing with you not disagreeing, he continues to say things that are inflammatory and false accusations of me and the context of the discussion.

Look I have spent a lot of time trying to blame myself for this one and the only way I can find to blame myself is if I pretend I didn't say what I did that started this whole mess in the first place. But the truth is I did say it and if he intended to agree with me, why did he insist he disagreed? And if he didn't understand me when I said I believe the totality of scripture is vital, why would he think I would post supporting passages to support my claims? And yet another big question, why, given the context of the discussion would everyone here read the same things I did? (without my prompting, just read it and tell me what you think is being said)

I am willing to accept blame for my part, whatever that part might be, but I am not willing to accept blame for his part and that includes his claiming to disagree with something I said if in truth he really agrees with me just doesn't want to admit that he does. (don't know his reason, just guessing which seems to be what he wants me to do)

So, to that end....I am truly sorry for any miscommunication that I caused. I am a firm believer that the totality of scripture is how we know the intent of any given passage and I am not willing to sit back and let anyone ear bash me into trying to change my mind on that. Likewise, as I have said before, I don't see that the teaching in question is really that hard of a teaching to grasp and accept, and having someone try to tell me I am wrong because I don't find it that hard isn't going to gain anyone any ground. The simple truth is that I don't find it to be a hard teaching, and as our daughter says, why should a personal opinion offend someone to the point of getting into an argument over it? That is pretty much all I have said, oh wait, I also said that I believe it is both, both Pharaoh hardening his heart and God hardening further and I gave my reasons for saying such. In relation to that belief, I showed the nature of God and how that nature was consistent with my belief and ask others on this thread (everyone) if they agreed or disagreed with the consistency of the nature of God. Now that covers everything I have said on the matter. Thus I have a nagging question I would beg either of you to answer....which of the three points I made does the poster in question disagree with, in fact, which does he disagree with so strongly as to try to argue with me over it....point 1. that the totality of scripture is necessary to know the intended meaning of a passage....2. that it is both, both Pharaoh had a hard heart and that God also hardened Pharaoh's heart....or 3. that the very nature of God tells us that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, because God's nature and promise is that all who come to Him will be saved, not just the one's that He might want to use for something else. IOW's if Pharaoh had wanted to serve God, God would have let Him without hardening his heart and would have found another way or another Pharaoh to harden the heart of.

Can't wait to see which point is in disagreement so that the discussion can advance. His posts made it seem like the totality of scripture, but as you say, maybe I am wrong, maybe it is one of the other two points and communication was just messed up...

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Doesn't natural man already have a heart of stone?

This is an important point. Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,. God would be just in hardening everyone's heart to the point of his righteous judgement destroying all. This almost happened in the flood. None are deserving of God's mercy. So it is not unjust that God decides to have mercy on some; such that his elect may receive his grace. The others follow a path to destruction.

Arguing that people make choices or that God knows all or that those whose hearts were hardened were already "hard" has no bearing on the OP. God called his chosen nation a stiff necked people and yet he still used them in his plan of mercy. Others are also used by God in his plan.

Proverbs 16:4 The Lord works out everything to its proper end— even the wicked for a day of disaster.

Deut 9:5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 6 Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.

It is an important point, but not for the reasons you listed.

I think it goes perfectly with the OP and Romans 9. Verse 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. It would not be called mercy if the saved were righteous/deserving of it. As you wrote: all natural men have hearts of stone. So none deserve salvation. God's grace brings it to some. Others get God's righteous judgement that we should all receive.

But, if you have different thoughts please can you write your reasons.

 

[football5680]

It was a combination of both God and the Pharaoh himself. The Pharaoh was reluctant to release the Israelites so as punishment God would not give him the grace to see the truth without retribution. Once enough damage was inflicted on the Egyptians he was able to discern the power of God.

 

[razzelflabben]

It was a combination of both God and the Pharaoh himself. The Pharaoh was reluctant to release the Israelites so as punishment God would not give him the grace to see the truth without retribution. Once enough damage was inflicted on the Egyptians he was able to discern the power of God.

some great choice of words there, thanks

 

[simonthezealot]

I appreciate the honesty...in fact, I have considered I am wrong, so let me ask you this...if I say to you that I believe the totality of scripture is vital to our understanding the intent of a passage and give you passages to support what I am saying, and you turn around and say to me that you disagree with me and what I have said, then say, some people try to use the totality of scripture as an excuse to not believe what the word clearly states....what would your interpretation of that comment be? Who do you think he is accusing of not believing the totality of scripture is how we find intended meaning? Would he be referring to some Joe that isn't in the conversation, or to the person he is quoting as disagreeing with?

Then, instead of saying something like, no, you miss understood, I was agreeing with you not disagreeing, he continues to say things that are inflammatory and false accusations of me and the context of the discussion.

Look I have spent a lot of time trying to blame myself for this one and the only way I can find to blame myself is if I pretend I didn't say what I did that started this whole mess in the first place. But the truth is I did say it and if he intended to agree with me, why did he insist he disagreed? And if he didn't understand me when I said I believe the totality of scripture is vital, why would he think I would post supporting passages to support my claims? And yet another big question, why, given the context of the discussion would everyone here read the same things I did? (without my prompting, just read it and tell me what you think is being said)

I am willing to accept blame for my part, whatever that part might be, but I am not willing to accept blame for his part and that includes his claiming to disagree with something I said if in truth he really agrees with me just doesn't want to admit that he does. (don't know his reason, just guessing which seems to be what he wants me to do)

So, to that end....I am truly sorry for any miscommunication that I caused. I am a firm believer that the totality of scripture is how we know the intent of any given passage and I am not willing to sit back and let anyone ear bash me into trying to change my mind on that. Likewise, as I have said before, I don't see that the teaching in question is really that hard of a teaching to grasp and accept, and having someone try to tell me I am wrong because I don't find it that hard isn't going to gain anyone any ground. The simple truth is that I don't find it to be a hard teaching, and as our daughter says, why should a personal opinion offend someone to the point of getting into an argument over it? That is pretty much all I have said, oh wait, I also said that I believe it is both, both Pharaoh hardening his heart and God hardening further and I gave my reasons for saying such. In relation to that belief, I showed the nature of God and how that nature was consistent with my belief and ask others on this thread (everyone) if they agreed or disagreed with the consistency of the nature of God. Now that covers everything I have said on the matter. Thus I have a nagging question I would beg either of you to answer....which of the three points I made does the poster in question disagree with, in fact, which does he disagree with so strongly as to try to argue with me over it....point 1. that the totality of scripture is necessary to know the intended meaning of a passage....2. that it is both, both Pharaoh had a hard heart and that God also hardened Pharaoh's heart....or 3. that the very nature of God tells us that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, because God's nature and promise is that all who come to Him will be saved, not just the one's that He might want to use for something else. IOW's if Pharaoh had wanted to serve God, God would have let Him without hardening his heart and would have found another way or another Pharaoh to harden the heart of.

Can't wait to see which point is in disagreement so that the discussion can advance. His posts made it seem like the totality of scripture, but as you say, maybe I am wrong, maybe it is one of the other two points and communication was just messed up...

To be honest simply put, if you go back to the first few posts of your dialogue I think you'll see what he meant by using the totality of scripture vs. claiming to use the totality of scripture.
He had one post in particular that laid it out actually using a large collection of scripture.

I don't necessarily wnat to get into the minutia of he said she said, simply wanted to say the miscommunication seemed to happen very early in the dialogue.

 

[razzelflabben]

To be honest simply put, if you go back to the first few posts of your dialogue I think you'll see what he meant by using the totality of scripture vs. claiming to use the totality of scripture.
He had one post in particular that laid it out actually using a large collection of scripture.

I don't necessarily wnat to get into the minutia of he said she said, simply wanted to say the miscommunication seemed to happen very early in the dialogue.

oh, I agree the miscommunication was early on, which is why I put it into context...but again, I appreciate your honesty. I have put a lot of time and effort into learning to take only what is mine and not what is not. I was taught to blame myself for everything, which is why I spent time in prayer and searching as to my role in the miscommunication. I am not saying I did nothing to contribute to the miscommunication, I am saying that what I am being accused of is not mine. I am also saying that from those here who read the same discussion without being "led" and know how serious I am about being above reproach, saw the discussion the same way I did.

Should I have been more direct in asking for clarification, maybe, but that is a far cry from all the things I was accused falsely of.