Divine Exasperation

tanksley, if Patton’s views are Calvinistic, then it’s confusing, not because it is complex, but because it’s double-speak.

Example: To say, as the WCF asserts, that God predetermined all things and events yet not in such a way as to include sin is double-speak.

Calvinism makes the message of God’s salvation complex because it interprets Biblical revelation in double-speak.

In any case, Patton still seems to have admitted he does not know or understand what he’s talking about.

P.S. The trinity is pretty simple for me to understand. Now quantum machanics…forget about it!

OK, now for a statement of the problem of human freedom and God’s sovereignty. I claim (as I did for the trinitarian statements) that all of these are supported in the Bible, but I provide no texts here; I welcome questions or challenges.

1. God is righteous and kind, and does not do evil.
2. God is holy and just, and judges evil by means of His wrath.
3. God is powerful and wise, and does not fail or falter.
4. Rebelling against God’s commands is evil for humans.
5. God commanded that humanity hear God, assent to God’s existence and nature, love Him, and desire His will to be fulfilled.
5. Humans constantly rebel against even God’s existence and express will.
6. God judges humans for every action, inaction, and thought.
7. Humans act according to their plans and desires.
8. Every outcome of human action is according to God’s plan.
9. God does not always immediately show His wrath towards evil.
10. God does not ever hide His displeasure with evil.

…I think this is enough for now. By the way, #10 is supported by all the verses on “divine exasperation” that the original post is talking about. God does not always strike down the wicked, but He is also never passive-aggressive about that.

What do you think?

-Wm

Please consider postponing doing a lot of work on my last post; I think your recent post offers a more interesting way to approach the topic. I may not be able to post on it for a couple of hours, though.

I’m not retracting that post, so if you enjoy replying, I’ll enjoy interacting with your reply. I’m just saying that if you don’t enjoy that post, I may have a more interesting one for you, since it’s more in line with your own point.

-Wm

What happened? The post I was referring to just vanished. If you’d like to discuss the WCF instead of my post, please let me know — and please confirm that you were citing WCF III.I (you didn’t make an exact quote). See http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ for details.

In case you meant to retract your post (which I didn’t find offensive BTW), I won’t mention it again.

-Wm

These posts are something of a blast from the past. I won’t get into this as much as I got bogged down last time and didn’t complete the responses I began. I simply had to move on. I do agree with the seeming double-speak of evil not originating in God yet the divine will as being the operative principle in Calvinism, which affirms that “God’s will is said to be the cause of all things” (Institutes 1.18.2).

One difficulty with Calvinism is the very emergence of sin in a good world (or in heaven, if we want to talk about Satan’s fall)–which runs counter to James 1 (which distances God from sin); the emergence of evil taints the character of a good God (see my post from a couple of years ago on R.C. Sproul Jr and the origin of sin). Indeed, judgment for human sin or jealousy at human idolatry seems problematic since humans could do nothing about it; they could only act by their strongest motive/desire, which is ultimately rooted in God’s predetermination.

The fact is: for Calvin, God doesn’t ultimatey condemn/reprobate anyone for sin. God from eternity has reprobated the non-elect independent of their doing anything wrong. Following Romans 9 (before Jacob and Esau could do anything right or wrong), Calvin says this: “If we cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will. When God is said to visit in mercy or harden whom he will, men are reminded that they are not to seek for any cause beyond his will” (Institutes 3.22.11). Human sin against a holy God is not the ultimate basis of reprobation; it is the divine will prior to human action. Human sin is a mere sidelight. I find this to be morally problematic.

For a good read on this, see Baggett and Walls, *Good God* (Oxford) in their chapter on Reformed theology as it relates to the moral argument. Okay, over and out.

Capon, your input is much appreciated especially the Calvin quote and book you suggested (already put it on my Amazon cart!).

As far as you Calvin quote, “…neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will”, without knowing Calvin said that, it was an argument I used many times and on the same basis of Rom 9 re: Jacob and Esau. I have looked to see if Calvin had ever affirmed this damnation by decree but never found it. Thanks!

Many times this damnation by decree was denied by the Calvinist I discussed it with stating that God damns the non-elect because of their sins. This of course is clearly double-speak (or, double-think) as God cannot choose decree damnation to particular persons as Calvinism affirms and simultaneously damn them for their sins as those who deserve it. Essentially, whether one deserves heaven or hell is totally removed from the soteriological equation.

Two arguments in particular are expressed by Calvinists: (a) that everyone deserves damnation and God is under no obligation to save anybody, an (b) God’s decree to damnation and man’s deserving it are mysteries, which the Bible affirms on both sides.

As I stated above, objection (a) is irrelavent, and (b) to hold both notions is not only illogical but flies in the face of common sense. Furthermore, re: objection (b), if the Calvinist can legitimately fall on the argument of mystery, then anyone can respecting their theological beliefs.

In any case, I really appreciate your citation of Calvin; it is very helpful for me.

tanksley, not sure I know which post you mean but none of my posts were deleted. Maybe it is the comment posted on pg.4, #48, that you are looking for or on this page 50, #1.

I really won’t be able to respond…holidays and all…but feel free; maybe I’ll read it after Jan 1…can’t promise…life gets to busy to spend on forums. I just wanted to give my 2 cents without necessarily debating it.

P.S. I read all your comments and I’m still firmly convinced Patton is using double-think; and, if he’s not sure of what he is talking about, I’m not going to be convinced of his position…who would be?

It is the physical property of a puddle of water on the ground to harden into ice when the sun’s warming influence is withdrawn. Similarly it is the natural propensity of the human heart to commit the vilest of sins if God withdraws his restraining influence. In some instances God chooses of his own accord to suspend his restraint considerably, and so far as he does, human nature quickly appears in its true colours. Without God’s restraint, a man commits sin out of his own evil heart, not because God forced him to do so. If God freely chooses to preserve another man’s evil heart from expressing itself outwardly in sinful behaviour as it is inclined to do, then that man is no more worthy than the first man and owes thanks to God for showing him favour. Thus God is no more the author of sin than the sun is the cause of ice.

Re: post#8 (p.5), McChedder says, “…a man commits sin out of his own evil heart, not because God forced him to do so.”

We can agree that God does not use force, nevertheless, your proposition is erred by the fact that Calvinism teaches God created some men for eternal damnation and secured it as certain by moving their hearts acccording to how He predetermined they should act, either righteous or sinful. So men are sinners, not because they are forced to commit sin, but because God predetermined their hearts to be sinful and what actions would follow therefrom.

It it not a matter of God restraining or withdrawing but of God acting upon men – those whom he had chosen for eternal damnation – be and do what is sinful.

As such, man’s desert has nothing to do at all with his salvation or damnation since before we were all born, God has chosen our final destiny (see Capon’s comment #5 and mine, #6, pg.5).

Of course all analogies are imperfect but I just want to point out that (a) water turning to ice and back has no moral value; (b) it is God who predetermined the properties of water.

The analogy proposed does better explain God’s activity upon men, according to Calvinism, when (b) is considered. In such a case, only then is point (a) relevant. Like water, man – whether righteous or sinful – is merely performing divinely predetermined actions according to his divinely predetermined nature (Calvin asserts all men were created for a preordained destiny, one particular person for damnation and another particular person for salvation) and, therefore, to speak of desert,. whether it is in terms of reward or punishment, is entirely irrelevant.

Calvinism removes all of man’s moral responsibility rendering him with properties that are no more or no less akin to the nature and actions of water, which must and does act, not in itself, but only as acted upon.

“I do agree with the seeming double-speak of evil not originating in God…”

That would be double-speak if we said it. It would also contradict the Bible, which is a bad thing.

“for Calvin, God doesn’t ultimately condemn/reprobate anyone for sin.”

That’s, again, not something Calvin said. It’s your attempt to draw his beliefs out into an ultimate sense. The problem with this, aside from the sheer risk of extrapolating from an admittedly unsympathetic point of view, is that no human is ultimate; so no ultimate conclusions can be drawn about humans. Every ultimate conclusion is about God. This doesn’t mean that humans don’t matter.

“I find this to be morally problematic.”

Yes, you do. But you do NOT, contrary to your earlier statement, find it to be inconsistent or double-speak.

-Wm

“Many times this damnation by decree was denied by the Calvinist I discussed it with stating that God damns the non-elect because of their sins. This of course is clearly double-speak (or, double-think)”

If you can’t actually show that it’s contradictory it’s not “clearly” double-speak. Calling it so does not make it so.

The split here is not between two contradictory propositions, but between two different ways of attributing causation: primary causation and secondary causation. These ways of looking at causation are not new to Calvinism (and thus they are not obviously special pleading in a manner that requires no argument from the accuser); they appear much further back; I would suggest that attributing the creation of all things to Christ as Paul does, or crediting God with willing the fall of a sparrow, is crediting God with primary causation even for things which have a clear secondary cause.

“Essentially, whether one deserves heaven or hell is totally removed from the soteriological equation.”

Unless you wish to embrace full Pelagianism, you yourself affirm this.

-Wm

William,

Hi again!

It will never make sense to me to say that God is not the cause of the sinners damnation when He is the primary cause and is so sovereign and powerful that none can withstand Him and He decrees and predestines that damnation from eternity past. The sinner has no say in that matter, so his sin and refusal of Christ is a foregone matter, is it not?

To me, this whole issue seems to be nothing more then double speak.

But I know very well from past experience that we will never agree on much of anything about any of this, and to say anything is much like bumping my head against a brick wall! 🙂 Sorry, but I couldn’t resist any way!

“As such, man’s desert has nothing to do at all with his salvation or damnation since before we were all born, God has chosen our final destiny (see Capon’s comment #5 and mine, #6, pg.5).”

BTW, it’s “Copan”, not “Capon”. 🙂

Rather than Copan and your comments, see Eph 1:5 (and context, of course). We are in Christ because God chose us before the foundations of the world by means of predestining us to adoption through Christ. Our names are in the Lamb’s Book of Life written before the foundation of the world. God chose us while we were at enmity with Him; we are in unity with Christ because of God’s choice, which truly contradicts it being the other way around.

So the Bible proclaims that God _has_ chosen our final destiny, and has planned and acted to rescue some of us to a different destiny, also of His choice.

“Calvinism removes all of man’s moral responsibility rendering him with properties that are no more or no less akin to the nature and actions of water, which must and does act, not in itself, but only as acted upon.”

I like how you’re using this metaphor to bring out your point, and I think it’s the right point. May we set aside the charges of double-talk or dishonesty — for which you’ve provided not a shred of evidence — and discuss this issue instead?

-Wm

William,

I am not implying any dishonesty in my comment above. I do not mean to be making character aspersions at all. I am sorry if it might have come across that way to you. It just seems to me that what is claimed by Calvinism is double speak because there is no logical way in my mind that both claims can be true–they contradict each other.

Cheryl, it’s good to hear from you again.

“It will never make sense to me to say that God is not the cause of the sinners damnation when He is the primary cause”

God is the cause, agent, and effector of the sinner’s damnation. No sinner would cast himself into the lake of fire; God will do that. The sinner does not damn himself; God does. The sinner’s acts witness to the corruption of the sinner’s heart; but the sinner did not create his own heart.

“and is so sovereign and powerful that none can withstand Him and He decrees and predestines that damnation from eternity past. The sinner has no say in that matter, so his sin and refusal of Christ is a foregone matter, is it not?”

The sinner has every say in the matter; our condemnation is just because of our actions, willingly undertaken.

But… Also… When I read the above objection I am again reminded of the objection in Romans 9, “so why does He find fault? For who can resist His will?”. It’s interesting that the objectors to Calvinism so often use such a similar tone to the tone Paul adopts for his hypothetical objection. The answer includes a reiteration: that some vessels are prepared beforehand for glory, and some are prepared for wrath. Paul doesn’t seem interested in rebutting the objector’s understanding of the power God wields; he accepts it and asks “so what?”

Look, we would be doomed if not for God’s promise of salvation. Do you believe the promise? If you do, you are saved. If you don’t believe the promise of salvation by Christ’s merits, then why would you believe the promise of condemnation by your own demerits?

“But I know very well from past experience that we will never agree on much of anything about any of this, and to say anything is much like bumping my head against a brick wall! 🙂 Sorry, but I couldn’t resist any way!”

I know exactly what you mean :-)! As long as one bumps one’s head gently, it’s actually mildly pleasant! OK, more aptly, I think it’s a good thing to be interested in what the Bible says, and to be concerned for God’s good name and revealed glory.

-Wm

“tanksley, if Patton’s views are Calvinistic, then it’s confusing, not because it is complex, but because it’s double-speak.”

Evidence?

“Example: To say, as the WCF asserts, that God predetermined all things and events yet not in such a way as to include sin is double-speak.”

First, Patton isn’t the WCF. Second, you’re not quoting from the WCF; you’re misparaphrasing it. Look it up and quote from it if you want to discuss it — although I will concede that you’ll have to apply an archaic meaning of the word “author” to understand how God isn’t the author of sin. The old meaning of “author” gave rise to our modern word “to authorize”, not our modern words “to author”.

Calvinism makes the message of God’s salvation complex because it interprets Biblical revelation in double-speak.

“In any case, Patton still seems to have admitted he does not know or understand what he’s talking about.”

Well, that’s not what he said. He said he finds it “confusing.” How many times in this one email have you read meanings into your own misquotation of people?

Look, I can tutor quantum mechanics. But it’s confusing, and I find it very confusing. I may well find it more confusing than you do. My students will find it confusing as well. Dr. Feynman found it confusing. There are only two ways to not find it confusing: to understand it better than Feynman, and not to understand it at all.

As a tutor, I can either act smarter than Feynman and tell my students I’m not confused, or I can empathize with my students and exclaim, truly, how confusing QM is. In neither case need I lack knowledge and understanding; on the contrary, I truly know more than my students and am suited to teach them.

Patton has chosen the path of empathy.

-Wm

tanksley: “As a tutor, I can either act smarter than Feynman and tell my students I’m not confused, or I can empathize with my students and exclaim, truly, how confusing QM is. In neither case need I lack knowledge and understanding; on the contrary, I truly know more than my students and am suited to teach them.”

1. I did admit that Quantum machanics is confusing for me.

2. There are those subjects one is able to understand and other subjects where one can be confused about. Quantum mechanics confuses me…don’t even know the first thing about it. The Bible doesn’t confuse me (how others interpret it does confuse me). That doesn’t mean I understand everything perfectly; it does mean I’m not confused about what I understand and what I don’t understand causes no confusion about what I do uunderstand. It seems you are implying arrogance on my part. Nothing I can do about your impression of my personal character but, from my perspective, my character or yours is irrelevant to the discussion.

3. Being smart does not necessarily mean one has come to the correct conclusions about a particular subject.

P.S. If my paraphrase of the WCF is misleading, just advise how (and, if you’d like, you can also add how the word “author” ought to be defined. Otherwise, I’ll stand by my paraphrase).

I’ll answer some of your more relevant objections later…

William,

I don’t think I have the energy to carry on this head banging for very long, no matter how mild or even pleasant it may be!

I guess I just want to say once more that when Jesus tells us He didn’t come into the world to condemn it but rather to save it, tells us that He loves the world, says He takes no pleasure in the death of the unrighteous and wants everyone to come to repentance and life, and pretty much tells people to do whatever is necessary to avoid hell and eternal damnation…..

Then in the next breath He says that He has prepared beforehand however many people–millions or billions or whatever– just for that purpose and that He is deliberately withholding the only hope of salvation that there is from those same people so that they will be damned, (and according to some, didn’t even die for those folks)….

I find that all hopelessly contradictory and as a matter of fact downright horrifying. That is why I just can’t wrap my mind or heart around Calvinist theology and think there must be something missing in the equation there.

I did admit that Quantum mechanics is confusing for me.

Of course; that’s why I’m using it as an example of something that’s confusing but true, in order to set up a clearly agreed situation where a teacher could say the same words Patton said in the first comment.

Do you agree that a QM teacher could say what Patton said without proving himself ineligible to teach QM?

There are those subjects one is able to understand and other subjects where one can be confused about. Quantum mechanics confuses me…don’t even know the first thing about it. The Bible doesn’t confuse me (how others interpret it does confuse me). That doesn’t mean I understand everything perfectly; it does mean I’m not confused about what I understand and what I don’t understand causes no confusion about what I do understand.

What am I supposed to take home from this? What does it prove to me? It might mean that you’re very smart, or it might mean you never think about anything that might confuse you. It doesn’t prove what you seem to think it does, that theology is one of those subjects where “one is able to understand” as opposed to a subject where “one can be confused about.”

In particular, if you want to apply this test, I’ll challenge you on whether you’ve applied it fairly to your own doctrines — the idea of libertarian free will is philosophically VERY complex.

I’ll answer some of your more relevant objections later

Cool, thanks.

-Wm

It seems you are implying arrogance on my part. Nothing I can do about your impression of my personal character but, from my perspective, my character or yours is irrelevant to the discussion.

I didn’t intend to write anything about you, and still don’t. We agree that would be unreasonable of me if I did; I don’t know you at all.

I did say some things about the arguments you were using. To be more formal, you’re setting up strawmen by misquoting people in such a way that it causes an immediate fallacy; and you’re doing that repeatedly.

P.S. If my paraphrase of the WCF is misleading, just advise how (and, if you’d like, you can also add how the word “author” ought to be defined. Otherwise, I’ll stand by my paraphrase).

First, your use of a “paraphrase” is misleading in that you brought it out in order to support your claim that Patton was using doublespeak. Quoting the WCF cannot prove that Patton is using doublespeak unless Patton is using the WCF himself.

Second, you paraphrased without indicating that it was a paraphrase, and without citation so that the reader could check.

Third, your paraphrase inserted a blatant fallacy, that God “predetermined all things and events” and did not “include sin”. Since “sin” is a “thing or event”, this is a fallacy of special pleading.

Fourth, the above fallacy was the purpose of your posting the paraphrase, since you gave no argument about the quotation; you simply presented it as though it spoke for itself to prove double-speak, and the fallacy of special pleading is one of the doublespeak fallacies.

Thus, your quotation of the WCF is “misleading” in that it doesn’t prove what you claim, doesn’t cite sources, presents the source in a bad light, and uses that bad light materially to your argument.

I shouldn’t have to present this argument; when YOU accuse Patton of doublespeak, YOU are responsible to prove your claim. I should not be required to DISPROVE it. Similarly, once it’s pointed out that your quotation of the WCF does not match the actual text, YOU are responsible to explain why it accurately represents the text even though it doesn’t match it.

-Wm

Tanksley,

1. Although you didn’t intend to write anything about me, nevertheless, the implications were there…but, we’ll forget about it for now.

2. My paraphrase is a paraphrase. I believe the essential thought is shown. Please show me how it is not.

You’re correct that quoting the WCF does not prove Patton talks double-speak. My intention was to suggest that the Calvinist system as a whole is double-speak (without the meaning of dishonesty attached to it) when it comes to the “doctrines of grace”.

I’m confused when you say, “Third, your paraphrase inserted a blatant fallacy, that God ‘predetermined all things and events” and did not “include sin’. Since sin’ is a ‘thing or event’, this is a fallacy of special pleading.”

My paraphrase follows the WCF 3:1 where it says, “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin…”

So it must be that the WCF is “special pleading”. Please explain.

The double-speak is when it says God did “ordain whatsoever comes to pass” but is not the “author of sin”. On the one hand, the assertion is made that every event is ordained by God and, on the other hand, sin is not that shich is ordained by God. Either sin is ordained and God ordained all events or sin is not ordained and God did not ordain all events.

This is not the Bible double-speak. The Calvinistic interpretations of the Bible are.

I must apologize for such a brief response but I am unable to continue the conversation further. You may respond for the benefit of the readers of this thread but I must attend to other personal matters, which prevent me from continuing. In any case, my intention was really not to debate but just to offer my observation.

I apologize for needing to bow out. Thanks…

“I guess I just want to say once more that when Jesus tells us He didn’t come into the world to condemn it but rather to save it, tells us that He loves the world, says He takes no pleasure in the death of the unrighteous and wants everyone to come to repentance and life, ”

Calvinists and Arminians agree.

and pretty much tells people to do whatever is necessary to avoid hell and eternal damnation…

Neither Calvinists nor Arminians believe that there’s anything you can do to avoid hell. Chopping your hand off our putting your eye out won’t get you into heaven. Thus, this statement has to be taken as a statement of God’s unyielding law, not as part of a presentation of God’s Gospel kindness.

“Then in the next breath He says that He has prepared beforehand however many people–millions or billions or whatever– just for that purpose”

That seems to be what Paul says, yes; minus the word “beforehand” and the numbers. Yet you cast it as something you disagree with. Do you?

“and that He is deliberately withholding the only hope of salvation that there is from those same people so that they will be damned,”

Where do you find that Calvinists believe this? This is such a complex statement I don’t know how to start.

There IS no hope of salvation apart from belief in God’s promise to achieve salvation entirely on our behalf apart from our work. That statement doesn’t “withhold hope”, it merely accurately states reality. And God didn’t do this “so that [people] would be damned”; on the contrary, God does not desire the damnation of people, which (since we know that God does in fact damn people) means that God has a greater purpose.

And belief is not something that people can achieve through effort. Christ says that those the Father draws will hear His voice and follow him, and be raised on the last day; those the Father does not draw will not hear His voice.

“(and according to some, didn’t even die for those folks)…”

True, according to Calvinists; at least, His death did not bring them salvation. Nor does He ever intercede for them, nor does He work all things together for good for them. Why are the latter two claims less controversial than the first one?

-Wm

My paraphrase follows the WCF 3:1 where it says, “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin…”

The double-speak is when it says God did “ordain whatsoever comes to pass” but is not the “author of sin”. On the one hand, the assertion is made that every event is ordained by God and, on the other hand, sin is not that which is ordained by God. Either sin is ordained and God ordained all events or sin is not ordained and God did not ordain all events.

Excellent; now you’ve posted the actual words, and any reader can look up and see that they do not use the word “ordain” to describe how sin is being singled out. So it’s not as simple as you’re wanting it to be; in order to derive a contradiction you’re actually going to have to explain how “God did ordain sin” and “God is not the author of sin” are actual contradictions. It’s not enough to point, unless the words are perfectly clear (as they were in your “paraphrase”, although not representing the writer’s actual meaning).

More in a few hours; the problem of sin in complex, simply by the Biblical data.

-Wm

William,

I truly don’t have time or energy for a long drawn out conversation here again. So I will only be speaking quickly here in answer to your last comment.

The cutting off of hands, etc. statement by Jesus shows in my mind how terrible hell is and that we must be willing to turn from our sin if we wish to avoid going there. Of course, repentance by itself saves no one. Only Jesus does that.

But my point in using it is to show how God views hell and people going to hell. To tell us that and then to turn around and say that He prepares people specifically to go there, makes no sense and is indeed an extreme contradiction.

Now of course we are not God. But would we treat any child of ours this way? Tell them that there is a horrible, horrible punishment awaiting those that misbehave us and that it should be avoided at all costs, but then turn right around and say that we have conceived them for the purpose of enduring that punishment and that there is nothing they can do to avoid it??

“Although you didn’t intend to write anything about me, nevertheless, the implications were there…but, we’ll forget about it for now.”

I’d appreciate it more if you’d either withdraw the charges or tell me where I went wrong; you have no right to declare my intentions pure while declaring my actions evil. You can’t possibly see my intentions to declare them pure, and you claim to see my actions (although you haven’t explained what action I’ve done).

-Wm

One more thought.

The second greatest commandment is that we should love our neighbors as ourselves.

Now loving ourselves certainly means that we will not want ourselves going to hell!

How then do we truly love our neighbors as ourselves knowing that a great many of those neighbors have been predestined by God to go to that horrible place? What a horrific thought that is! Or if you don’t believe in double predestination, believing at least that God is actively refusing to grant them salvation while He is choosing to give it to others?

Loving them, as far as I can tell and going by any type of normal definition of love, has to be horrified at such scenarios. Love wants the very best for people after all.

Now of course we are not God. But would we treat any child of ours this way? Tell them that there is a horrible, horrible punishment awaiting those that misbehave us and that it should be avoided at all costs, but then turn right around and say that we have conceived them for the purpose of enduring that punishment and that there is nothing they can do to avoid it??

What you’re complaining about is not Calvinism; it’s either hypercalvinism or plain old Augustinian orthodoxy. There are two ways to read what you just wrote. One is to agree that there’s nothing they can DO, but to point out that your hypothetical speaker should have added that God has done something that applies to them if only they believe God when He tells them this.

The second way to read what you wrote is to see it as a hypercalvinist speaking to someone because they falsely believe they can peer into the secret counsel of God to see who is elect and who isn’t. For example, see the Phelps “church”, with all the “godhatesfags” signs. It’s a lie when they say it, and it’s not accurate testimony to attribute their lie to Calvinists. (Note that I don’t blame you for that testimony; you’re just the messenger.)

Again: Calvinists do not tell anyone that God intended them for destruction. God says that those whom God destroys in His wrath were designed and created for wrath — but that doesn’t give us license to assume that any specific person or group of people is one of those; on the contrary, Paul says that in a passage where he systematically eliminates ways for humans to place each other into saveable and unsaveable groups. We can’t do that. We can’t say that because you’re female you’re unsaveable, or because I’m white I’m saveable, or because I’m saved my hypothetical twin must be saveable as well.

All we can do is declare the message — here’s how, historically, God saved the world; if you believe God’s announcement, then you are saved by God. If you do not believe, then you stand condemned just as you were (whether you believe that or not).

Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards line up in agreement on this point. Only Pelagius and the lesser known monk Semipelagius disagree.

-Wm

William,

You are misunderstanding me a great deal here.

I said nothing about telling any particular person that they were created and designed for wrath and I would certainly never do so.

What I did say is that the Calvinist understanding that God directly designs and creates some people for wrath is something that I find horrific and completely contrary to a very large part of the rest of God’s revelation of Himself and His dealings with mankind. That is why I continue to believe that Calvinists must be understanding something incorrectly here.

And that is what I find just doesn’t fit with telling us we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. Love them as ourselves–we would never want to go to hell but if the Calvinist understanding is true, we know that God has designed and created (to use your own words) some of those that we are told to love as ourselves for wrath. How do we bear knowing that anyway about people we love? Do you truly think all of your neighbors are among the elect?

Maybe it doesn’t bother you to know that God designed and created a whole bunch of people–people that will be conscious for the rest of eternity–for the purpose of pouring out wrath upon them. But it bothers me greatly. And it bothers a whole lot of other non Calvinist folks greatly too. And you can throw out your pelagian or semi pelagian implications all you like there, it will not change that fact.

It is great to be a human being in the Calvinist understanding of things if you happen to be one of the elect. But woe, woe, woe, a thousand times woe to you if you happen to be one of the folks that that have been designed and created for wrath–everlasting conscious torment.

How then do we truly love our neighbors as ourselves knowing that a great many of those neighbors have been predestined by God to go to that horrible place?

First, we don’t know that. We DO know that if they don’t hear the gospel they will go to hell; but we don’t know anything about how many of our neighbors are predestined to anything. That’s God’s business, not ours.

Second, the question of whether they’re predestined to anything is a question of objective FACT. I can love my neighbor even believing that my neighbor is dying of inoperable cancer. My love isn’t impacted by my belief about the pain, horror, and deadliness of cancer.

And like cancer, unbelief kills — unbelief is a violation of the first commandment. But seeing that my neighbor harbors unbelief doesn’t tell me that my neighbor is predestined to anything; it merely tells me that my neighbor needs the gospel.

Loving them, as far as I can tell and going by any type of normal definition of love, has to be horrified at such scenarios. Love wants the very best for people after all.

Wanting the best does not mean denying God’s word. Taken to extremes, your definition of love simply refutes hell. Can you imagine a pastor preaching at the funeral of a proud unbeliever without either lying about God or slandering the stated beliefs of the proud unbeliever? (I believe that Rob Bell’s comments about Gandhi amounts to a profound disrespect of Gandhi’s frequently and strongly expressed beliefs, pretending that all of Gandhi’s good deeds sprang from a love of the God Gandhi actually fervently denied. We should not pretend that only saved people can do good, or that salvation ends sin.)

Now, let me add that such a funeral sermon should NOT be hellfire and brimstone; but I am saying that it should comfort the family with honesty about the person, not dishonesty, and as a pastor has the obligation to preach the gospel, he must preach it at this funeral as at all others.

-Wm

“And you can throw out your pelagian or semi pelagian implications all you like there, it will not change that fact.”

Whoops, that’s a fair complaint on your part. I wasn’t phrasing that as carefully as I should have, which was my fault entirely. I appreciate you pointing my error out with such honesty and kindness.

To be clearer, I know you do NOT believe either heresy, which is why I’m trying to exhort you to stop using arguments against me that only work on people who are pelagian or semi-pelagian.

-Wm

“Taken to extremes, your definition of love simply refutes hell.”

Well, let’s not take it to extemes here shall we?? That is not my intention!

There is a vast difference between God truly desiring all sinners to be saved and providing the way for that to happen through Jesus, rejected as that offer may be by people, and God actually designing and creating some people for the purpose of suffering His wrath.

And as to your cancer patient analogy, of course we still love the person. And we love all people according to God’s command. But to love them knowing that surely some of them that we love are created and designed for His wrath is indeed an agonizing thought. As I said earlier, a thousand times woe to the one that God has created for such a horrendous purpose.

If a man created something for the purpose of pouring out torment and wrath on it, that man would be considered by all to be an absolute monster. But Calvinists don’t seem to have any trouble accepting an interpretation of the Bible that has God doing just that with His creation.

I said nothing about telling any particular person that they were created and designed for wrath and I would certainly never do so.

You did — you asked whether I would treat my child that way. That’s a particular person. Over and over you’ve asked how Calvinists could say that about “our neighbors”, how we could count people and admit that any fraction of them might be hopeless. All of those are questions about particular people.

What I did say is that the Calvinist understanding that God directly designs and creates some people for wrath is something that I find horrific and completely contrary to a very large part of the rest of God’s revelation of Himself and His dealings with mankind. That is why I continue to believe that Calvinists must be understanding something incorrectly here.

I understand your feelings, but doesn’t Paul actually _say_ this in Romans 9? It’s hard to weigh a general feeling against an explicit passage.

How do we bear knowing that anyway about people we love? Do you truly think all of your neighbors are among the elect?

Let’s put it this way: when I preach the gospel, I pray constantly and have little concern for being “attractional” or “seeker-centered”. God has the authority over who is saved, not men; and God has NOT exhausted His capabilities — contrary to some, who claim that God loves the world so much he’s already done all He can, and now He’s waiting and hoping that we make a decision to follow Him.

God is not helpless; God is waiting in patience and longsuffering all of us to come to repentance, but He is the cause of the repentance just as He is the cause of our existence.

Maybe it doesn’t bother you to know that God designed and created a whole bunch of people–people that will be conscious for the rest of eternity–for the purpose of pouring out wrath upon them.

Doesn’t it bother you that He WILL, whether they were created for that or not? Does that bother cause you to deny the clear teaching of scripture about eternal conscious torment, as you see it? Then please don’t ask me to deny the clear teaching of scripture because I’m “bothered”.

But woe, woe, woe, a thousand times woe to you if you happen to be one of the folks that that have been designed and created for wrath–everlasting conscious torment.

You sound like one of God’s angels in the book of Revelation. Think about it… They were speaking the truth.

-Wm

William,

As I said at the start of this conversation, it is an exercise in head bumping and I just don’t have it in me to take it any further.

The Calvinist understanding and evidently your understanding too, of what God is like and how He deals with His creation is so totally different then the non Calvinist understanding that I sometimes think we are not even from the same planet!

One or the other group has been sold a bill of goods, comparable to some ocean front property in Arizona, that is for sure.

Just one final thought William.

I can’t help but wonder how you would or will feel if you should some day find out that what you have believed to be saving faith in yourself was not true faith–what if you don’t persevere?

What if it is YOU in the end that has been designed and created by God for His wrath? If it was to get that personal, what would you think about such a scenario? What if you discover it is you that He made you for the purpose of everlasting, conscious, absolutely horrific torment?? And of course there is nothing that you can do about it? What do you do with that? Can you still go on your way thinking that all is great?

What if it is YOU in the end that has been designed and created by God for His wrath?

Wow, that’s a stunning question. Well phrased, too. I don’t know. I suspect, though, that I’d feel burning shame and guilt. Because, let’s face it, the RESULT of being judged by God is an accurate and apt punishment, and there’ll be nothing I can say against the weight of the evidence against me. I just don’t see how anyone will be able to finish a sentence containing the thought “this isn’t fair.”

Can you still go on your way thinking that all is great?

NO. It won’t be, for me.

But, Cheryl, let’s be frank… We both know that at the Judgement Day there WILL be people in the exact position you described for me. You act like you’re describing a hypothetical situation that could only happen if my opinion of reality were true, but it’ll really happen if mere orthodox Christianity is true.

Some like myself will say, “Lord, Lord, did we not argue for the doctrine of your sovereignty on bulletin boards?” Others more like yourself will say “And did we not argue in favor of your all-encompassing love?” And He will answer both, “I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.”

-Wm

OK, now let’s look at how the WCF speaks about God, creation, and sin. Let’s keep in mind that when a document appears at first glance to contain a contradiction, the correct response is not to set up a wall, but to ask “could the writer have meant something else?” The first place to look for the writer’s meaning is within the same document (context, context, context). In this case, the direct silliness of your interpretation makes it certain that something else is meant.

In paragraph 5:4 WCF goes into detail on this topic, with the additional clarity that it’s talking not about God’s decree, but about God’s providence. The doctrine of meticulous providence, UNLIKE the doctrine of the meticulous eternal decree, is well and clearly stated in the Bible rather than being a mere philosophical conclusion (yes, my fellow Calvinists, I said that, although also note that I do not claim that the Bible contradicts your conclusion). At the same time, it has the exact same impact on the “free will” debate as the teaching of the meticulous decree.

So, what does WCF 5:4 say? “THE almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men,(14) and that not by a bare permission,(15) but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding,(16) and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends;(17) yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God; who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.(1 8)”

So, this claims that God refrains from stopping the sinful action (that’s what “bare permission” means), but that he does not MERELY do this; that furthermore God bounds the sinful actions, restraining man from the extremes he would otherwise go to; and that furthermore God both “orders and governs” the sinful actions so that “his holy ends” are achieved. Here’s the crucial point of their discussion, because when God orders and governs sinful actions for His own purposes, in what way does that tie Him to the sins themselves?

The writers of the WCF then deny that this makes Him “author or approver” of sin, but they expect that He approves of “his own holy ends” to which those sins are the allegedly ordained means (note that I smuggled in the word “ordain” from WCF 3, and claimed that the manner in which the sins are ordained is as means to a good end, not as ends in themselves).

Now, look at this. As a Christian you believe in God’s providence; therefore you must affirm these things. I think you’re free to deny parts of section III, but not because it contains a contradiction (if it did, so would this, and so ultimately would the Bible); but rather because it’s a mere philosophical conclusion rather than a direct Biblical teaching. On the other hand, you cannot teach that God’s decree prior to creation encompasses anything less than the salvation of all who will be saved; that much is directly taught in the Bible.

-Wm

The Calvinist understanding and evidently your understanding too, of what God is like and how He deals with His creation is so totally different then the non Calvinist understanding that I sometimes think we are not even from the same planet!

Frankly, it’s simply not. Although our confessions aren’t identical, they’re incredibly close. Our churches diverged over minor points in theology, and serious theologians agree that if either group has the gospel, both do. Admittedly there are different dangers in the two theologies; I admit that the danger you sketch above is a real one, but you overstep to claim that the danger is actually a necessary consequence.

From experience, I have to say that the CURRENT danger I see in Calvinism is inherent in the spirit of the age, and your churches are just as exposed as mine. The real danger these days isn’t forgetting about the love of God, but rather is in mysticism: the fiction that God is accessible to man apart from the ways God has proclaimed that He makes Himself available. And that’s a whole different argument.

(And if I wanted, I could talk about the serious dangers inherent to your theology — but I don’t think it’s particularly relevant, since they’re dangers, not necessary consequences.)

-Wm

William,

The real danger these days……… but rather is in mysticism: the fiction that God is accessible to man apart from the ways God has proclaimed that He makes Himself available.

Amen brother! I agree that mysticism is a huge problem in the church these days. (Isn’t it nice to not be arguing about something for once?)

William,

Thanks for posting your views in such detail. I am reading and re-reading what everyone is saying in this discussion and I am feeling increasingly confused because both sides’ arguments seem cogent!

Anyway, in post #179, you said (in reference to Acts 7:51):
I never said the Spirit hardened their heart; I said that humanity’s heart is hard (Jeremiah compares it to a stone). That’s not the fault of the Spirit; it’s the fault of humanity.

But doesn’t that contradict Romans 9:18?
He shows mercy to those He wants to, and He hardens those He wants to harden.

Just a quick comment on the last postings….

Of course, hardening is a two-stage process: God’s hardening—as in the case of Pharaoh–comes after human hard-heartedness and resistance to divine grace. God can harden whom he will for his purposes—he can use the already hardened and “give them over” to that which they have chosen in the first place. In Romans 9-11, we see an exasperated God who holds out his hands all day to stubborn ethnic Israelites (Rom. 10:21) who continue to clutch at their covenant privileges rather than being a light to the Gentiles. As long as they do this, they remain vessels for destruction–and God uses this stubbornness to bring the Gentiles in. As Paul says in 2 Tim. 2, those who are vessels for dishonorable use can become vessels for honorable use (2 Tim. 2:21). This is much like what Jesus said to his brothers who didn’t believe in him (Jn. 7:7: “the world cannot hate you”) although later after the resurrection his brothers became believers. Though they were part of “the world,” they were not locked in to this condition. At any rate, N.T. Wright cautions us not to read Romans 9-11 in isolation from the entirety of Romans, and he gives a nice overview of the flow of argumentation here: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf. Once a Calvinist himself, Wright summarizes his pilgrimage, telling how began to rethink Romans 9-11 as a result of re-reading the biblical text: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_My_Pilgrimage.htm

To my thinking, it’s hard to see why God should be angry at/jealous because of idolatry when humans have no grace to do anything else and God has ordained/is the cause of this state in the first place. Satan’s (or Adam’s) fall could not have been because “it was the fault of [Satan or] humanity.” They were created good….

Mr. Copan, thanks for the NT Wright articles…much appreciated also, sorry I spelt your name wrong on my comments…fingers get mixed up).

Mr. Copan, on what grounds do you claim NT Wright as a backer for your position? As you’re well aware, many Calvinists claim him as well. I’m far from an expert on Wright, I should add, but I can see a controversy a long ways off.

Not only is Rom 9 not the only Biblical support for Calvinism’s 5 points, so that Calvinism would stand nearly as well with it taken away; but also, claiming that Rom 9 serves a larger purpose does not serve to dismiss Calvinist claims about the argumentation used in Romans 9.

I love what Wright is saying; I plan to read much more from all those resources he’s put online.

-Wm

Phil, thank you; these discussions are both fun and usually educational. Mr. Copan in particular always challenges with something serious to read.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure what post of mine you’re referring to; as you may notice, the post numbers change every time you turn a page. Thus, I’m not sure what I was protesting against in context. I do agree with you that God definitely hardens; but I would suggest that this is done to someone who already has determined evil in their heart. It’s not parallel, I think, to the heart of stone/heart of flesh metaphor, so we can’t say from those passages that God uses hardening to actively make us have hearts of stone when we once had hearts of flesh.

-Wm

Do you think the references in the bible to God being exasperated by man’s disobedience are designed not to teach us the facts about God’s/man’s initiative in repenting, but rather to stimulate us emotionally to choose to repent? Perhaps the bible describes God in this way not to teach us systematic theology for us to philosophize over but to appeal to man’s emotions and provoke him to make a responsible, willing decision.

When a non-Christian repents and believes in Jesus, he has been moved and enabled by God to do so. But God has not acted on that person like a puppeteer pulling strings on a puppet to make it move. Rather, God has effected that person’s repentance & faith by means of appealing to that person’s understanding and emotions, and so using that person’s willing decision as a link in the chain of events. If that person has a notion that his conversion is pre-ordained and inevitable, he would no longer feel morally responsible for making a decision to repent and believe. But God wants us to make an executive decision to repent and believe in Jesus, to act with true motives and deliberate intent and urgent desire, and therefore some parts of the bible picture God as “holding out his hands all day long to a stubborn and obstinate people” in order to shame man into having a contrite spirit and to exert himself to choose to repent & believe.

If this makes God seem sly, is there not a parallel between this and Jesus’ behaviour in Luke 24:28 where Jesus deliberately gave the impression he was going to continue on his journey, in order to give Clopas and his companion the opportunity to choose to invite him to sup with them (rather than for Jesus to impose himself on them)? Also, Jesus’ unnecessary question to blind Bartimaeus ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ in Mark 10:51 was to encourage Bartimaeus for a specific request (his intelligent cooperation) instead of a vague “Bless me”. Also, God coming down to investigate whether Sodom was as evil as He had heard rumoured, as though He didn’t already know, in order to give Abraham the opportunity to intercede for mercy. (See also Mark 6:48 and John 6:5-6.)

William,
Sorry for my misleading reference. The post I was referring to was #29 on the 4th page of comments.
I note you suggest that God hardens someone after that person has already determined to do evil. But what about God hardening someone in impenitency, ie. hardening a non-Christian who “loves darkness rather than the Light because his deeds are evil, and avoids the Light so that his deeds may not be exposed” (John 3:19-20)? If that non-Christian persists in recoiling from Jesus (like ants living under a stone that scurry away to hide in the ground when you pick the stone up and turn it over), might God eventually harden him in his unbelief? If you would say Yes, aren’t you then acknowledging that his damnation was not pre-ordained by God but stems from his own obstinacy in not coming to the Light? And therefore, logically, wouldn’t you be forced to admit that someone who does convert to Jesus can pat himself on the back for not being so obstinate?
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth – I am just trying to extrapolate what you said to its logical conclusion. Thanks.

Some good questions here, William and Phil. I appreciate the graciousness with which you ask and ply.

William, Wright rejects the traditional Calvinistic reading of Romans 9-11 (so, not necessarily decisive on the question but still quite significant. In his *Justification* (IVP) he offers a broad defense of the Reformed solas with which Protestants like me are also in agreement. Wright insists on Scripture alone (here he challenges folks like Piper to go back to the Scriptures, not to the sixteenth century!), by Christ alone, by faith alone, by grace alone, etc. (He rejects the doctrine of imputation, however, and I think he’s right in his analysis, but that’s another matter I won’t get into.) Respected Calvinists have noted that he has a distinctively synergistic tone in his writings (e.g., see Michael Horton on this: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/justification-and-ecumenism/). Others have gotten this impression too. I myself chatted over lunch with theologian Scott Hafemann back in Jan. 2004; he told me that Wright “used to be a Calvinist” and that his writings were a departure from historic Calvinism. I could go on….

On to the hardening!

Did God harden Adam and Eve or Satan before they fell? *How* did they come to fall apart from God’s bringing them out of a good state to a sinful one?

In terms of God’s stimulating us (well, some of us!) to repent by using “exasperation” language, this doesn’t seem quite right. We can make factual claims on the basis of such texts: that God had utilized all resources possible to bring about repentance but Old Testament Israel repeatedly refused (e.g., the song of the vineyard in Isaiah 5; God’s repeatedly sending the prophets to Israel till there was no remedy). I just see so many such references in Scripture that a theological point seems quite clear. But we will probably have to agree to disagree.

On Bartimaeus, Kenneth Bailey comments that the answer to Jesus’ question was far from a slam-dunk in favor of seeing, as this would mean a complete lifestyle change. I know of dear persons who don’t want to hear because this would radically alter their social equilibrium. On Jesus’ pretending he would go further (Lk. 24), we can see this as an expression of politeness rather than imposition. Jesus is being quite the “gentleman” in Rev. 3:20: He stands and knocks, and if anyone opens the door, he will come in and dine with that person.

In Hebrews 6, God enlightens persons and lets them taste/experience the heavenly gift. Here God opens their eyes and lets them see, but they ultimately refuse God’s gracious initiative.

In terms of those who love the darkness rather than the light (Jn. 3), the only way they can come to the light is if they respond in repentance to the promptings of God’s Spirit in his Word or in creation and conscience and expressions of God’s goodness (e.g., Acts 14 and 17)–something God commands all people to do (Ac. 17:31—which presupposes God’s grace to do so). God may. if he wills, harden people as a last resort, but he gives genuine opportunity for all to repent. It’s only when those opportunities continue to be refused or resisted (e.g., Acts 7:51) that God may harden whom he hardens (like Pharaoh).

It seems to me, on your thinking (Phil and William), that as we look back on any of our actions (even as believers), we could not have done other than what we did because of all the prior influences allowed/produced by God. But this would run contrary to, say, 1 Cor. 10:13—God always makes a way of escape in any of our temptations that we can endure it.

A person who comes to the light comes because of God’s gracious initiative–though it is resistible. It seems silly to congratulate oneself for receiving a Christmas present rather than refusing it.

I hope that helps clarify.

Paul, after some more digging, I confirmed my impression that Wright considers himself a Calvinist, even though he disagrees with the classical use of Romans 9-11. The “More Reformed Than Thou” people disagree, but Wright calls himself “a good Calvinist” in http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm, and I don’t think he means “a scholar of Calvin”. Many of his followers consider themselves not only good Calvinists, but even good Presbyterians who simply have a different reading. (The Presbyterian churches largely seem to disagree with the latter, although this strictness is controversial even there. The Reformed Baptists and the “CREC” churches are more common locations for Wright “followers”.)

Of course, his reading is most quickly identified by his rejection of the idea that Paul is talking about imputation of righteousness; that is, as you state, a direct and central hit to most Calvinists (and Lutherans, for that matter). The thing I believe you’re missing is that although he rejects that, he does not reject imputation. On the contrary, his entire thesis of Romans makes imputation the central concept. The point (according to Wright) of the Law being given to the Jews is to pile up sin on the heads of God’s chosen people, so that the sin piled on God’s people can then be “piled up” on the head of His Son, imputed to Him although not committed by Him. Now, I don’t see here a doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, so it’s possible he rejects this Lutheran and Calvinist cornerstone. But imputation is still a live concept here — and in fact it goes much deeper in Wright than the traditional readings, since it runs throughout the entire plan of salvation, including the entire purpose of the Law and the Covenant.

Holy mackerel, this guy’s brilliant.

Please read http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf, and search for ‘imputing’. Read the entire paragraph. Wright affirms the ENTIRE concept of justification as taught by Luther and Calvin, rejecting the word imputation because of the room for a false interpretation as meaning a pure legal fiction. I do admit that Wright and Luther are incompatible in imputation, since it looks to me like Wright expects us to stand on the Last Day clothed in our own righteousness (and stripped of our own sins), while Luther would have us stand clothed in Christ’s righteousness; but as you said, that becomes another argument.

-Wm

OK, my point was that Wright is not on your side of this discussion. If you choose to accept his arguments, you accept almost all of mine as well.

Next, when you accept Romans 9 as fitting into a larger argument that does NOT pertain to individualized predestination to wrath (in spite of appearances), you still have to deal with the fact that the smaller arguments are pertinent to predestination, and they follow a passage (the “golden chain”) that clearly describes an individual predestination to glorification. So you might wind up like me, believing in predestination but suspicious of the arguments for hard-core double predestination.

But finally, Romans 9 is not a solitary prooftext for anything in Calvinism (even the superlapsarian/sublapsarian controversy), so even if you choose to reject my reading of it without completely accepting Wright’s, you’ve still got all of the other passages Calvinists bring up.

-Wm

Anyway, in [post #29 on comment page 4], you said (in reference to Acts 7:51):
I never said the Spirit hardened their heart; I said that humanity’s heart is hard (Jeremiah compares it to a stone). That’s not the fault of the Spirit; it’s the fault of humanity.

I did say that, but not in reference to Acts 7; I said that Acts 7:51 wasn’t germane to the discussion.

But doesn’t that contradict Romans 9:18?
He shows mercy to those He wants to, and He hardens those He wants to harden.

Do you believe the hardening is what causes people to be condemned? I don’t.

But what about God hardening someone in impenitency, ie. hardening a non-Christian who “loves darkness rather than the Light because his deeds are evil, and avoids the Light so that his deeds may not be exposed” (John 3:19-20)?

But these verses say the OPPOSITE of what you’re saying — they don’t say that the God condemns (by hardening) people, but rather they say that the Son does NOT condemn anyone. Do you think God works in opposition to the Son in this respect?

might God eventually harden him in his unbelief?

On what grounds do you say that person is NOT already hardened in his unbelief? As you may know, Calvinism, Arminianism, and Lutheranism hold to the doctrine of Total Depravity, which is precisely this claim. The split between the three is in the question of when God’s softening occurs, not when God hardens in unbelief — all agree that God does not do that.

This is where your extrapolation breaks down — I don’t think God has to harden us in order for us to resist Him.

-Wm

“Did God harden Adam and Eve or Satan before they fell? *How* did they come to fall apart from God’s bringing them out of a good state to a sinful one?”

Part of my understanding of hardening is that it’s not about God adding a new evil decision; rather, it’s a fixing of the decision someone’s already made. I know you agree with me thus far, and I’m OK with that. In other words, if God had hardened Adam and Eve, they would have been hardened in _innocence_, not changed into sinful creatures. The silliness of this idea will explain, I hope, why I don’t think it’s reasonable to speak this way. God’s hardening is NOT how God damns people; rather, it’s how He governs the behavior of sinners, limiting and directing their sins so that they further His plans. Sometimes the sin people are hardened into is better than what they would have done otherwise; other times (as with Pharaoh) we do know that God hardened his heart so that he would not let God’s people go,which thereby prevented him from doing a relatively good act (but we should not read this as meaning that Pharaoh would have been saved if not for the hardening; simply that his sin would take some other form).

I don’t think this reading should be objectionable to any of us, right?

-Wm