Pharaoh’s Heart

[Carbon]

Are we not all born with a hard (unbelieving) heart until God's softens it?

Would God's simply not softening hearts necessarily result in their further hardening?

Hard harts are old unchanged hearts in a way. So aren’t they naturally hard. But when scripture speaks about being hardened, hardens, hardening etc…wouldn’t that mean for a purpose in the making or about to unfold, since it is specifying? I think so

 

[fastfredy0]

we have to say that evil (sin) does not 'exist' as such?

Sin (evil) does not exist. It is the lack of righteousness in a person/spirit.

Evil is nothing. It is not a thing that has existence. It is an action of something that is a thing. When I do something that is not good, then I am doing something that is evil, but evil then is an activity of some being. It has no being of itself. R.C.Sproul
If Augustine's approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion.

First:
1) All things that God created are good;
2) evil is not good;
3) therefore, evil was not created by God.

Second:
1) God created everything;
2) God did not create evil;
3) therefore, evil is not a thing.

 

[makesends]

While I agree that Adam was created innocent (he had done no wrong) ... how do you know he wasn't created with sinful preferences? Adam obviously was given some preferences ... like wanting to breathe and eat. If Adam did not have a preference to commit sin in certain circumstances, how did he develop such a preference? (Libertarian Free Will?)
When we get to heaven, will not our 'preferences' be reprogrammed such that we will never sin again and why couldn't Adam's preferences be so programmed so as not to sin?

Aside: If you have the answers then you got can possibly write a Ph.D. thesis. Maybe mention me as contributor. *giggle*

To my mind, sinful preferences are a result of sin —not only a cause of sin. To prefer copulation is not sinful. To be ruled by desire is.

 

[Carbon]

Could that mean a choice not to soften hearts, leaving them to their own devices?

By not choosing to soften hearts, leaving them to their own devices, wouldn’t they “naturally” without softening (regenerating) continue in their own ways?

 

[Carbon]

Maybe we should pause here a moment to answer what sin is. It is often called missing the mark, but it is more radical than that. It is aiming at the wrong target.
(definition courtesy Michael D. Williams Far As the Curse is Found)

Yes, just imagine that for a moment. Jesus was crucified, why, because we missed the mark. It wasn’t a holy God who was offended, we just missed the mark. Not so serious.

 

[fastfredy0]

To my mind, sinful preferences are a result of sin —not only a cause of sin. To prefer copulation is not sinful. To be ruled by desire is.

Seems a preference to perform a certain sin is the cause of sin rather than being the result of sin. I don't copulate and all of a sudden develop a preference for it. I wanted to copulate and the result is sin if I copulate. That being said, the desire to sin is sinful. The next question is: what was the cause of my desire. Hmmm... I didn't have the desire to copulate till I was 14ish .... ... hmmm

Why couldn't you pick the sin of "picking your nose"?

 

[fastfredy0]

@Carbon ... next time pose an easier question like "why did the chicken cross the street" or "why does an object reach infinite length as it approaches the speed of light".

 

[Carbon]

“The entire problem of theodicy arises from a wrong question or a wrong presumption. Rather one should see God as essentially good and deriving the definition of good from observing the one true and living God. We abstract an idea of good and then try to measure God against that human abstraction. That is always a losing proposition because we don’t know what ‘good’ is. The problem occurs when persons come up to us and says “if God does this, He can’t be good.” They don’t realize that is an internal contradiction. The only God that exists is a God who is good. He defines what is good by consistency with His own character, and not by the fact that He corresponds to some arbitrary understanding of good. But we must never fall into the trap – we can’t accept the presumption that we are trying to define God over against a human abstraction called “good.” Instead we have to simply come back again and again to the fact that God is good. Whatever He does is good. Albert Mohler

Since God causes everyone to die I suppose one could use human measurements of sin and propose God murders everyone. God, by definition, can do no wrong.

Interesting post. But you’re overthinking it.

 

[makesends]

Sin (evil) does not exist. It is the lack of righteousness in a person/spirit.

Evil is nothing. It is not a thing that has existence. It is an action of something that is a thing. When I do something that is not good, then I am doing something that is evil, but evil then is an activity of some being. It has no being of itself. R.C.Sproul
If Augustine's approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion.

First:
1) All things that God created are good;
2) evil is not good;
3) therefore, evil was not created by God.

Second:
1) God created everything;
2) God did not create evil;
3) therefore, evil is not a thing.

I agree, but that does not preclude that God caused that there be evil.

We say that evil is the 'privation of good', which is a careful way of saying what you said, done to mitigate false equivalencies some might draw from saying it in such ways as 'opposition to good'.

But I think it can rightly be said that evil is a principle or a fact, both of which are either directly or indirectly caused by God. I also remind us that evil is given in at least poetic language in scripture an apparent nature at times, crouching at the door, desiring to have us, ruling over us, and related causally to suffering and death.

If darkness can be dealt with in causal language, so can sin. And I think God caused the "what is" —i.e. the arrangement of fact and reality— that we speak of as causing or resulting in moral evil. Thus, we in our stunted thinking (and speaking) can reasonably say that God caused that there be sin.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What does it mean, that God hardened Pharoah's heart? Didn't Pharoah harden his own heart? If he hardened his own heart, why did God harden his heart?

How does this work?

Simple - God SOFTENED Pharaoh's heart. And then allowed it to go back to its normal state.

 

[makesends]

Interesting post. But you’re overthinking it.

Yes, but he has a point. If one takes the self-determinist's view —that God does no harm— to its logical end, it contradicts itself that way —in that God kills everyone sooner or later.

 

[makesends]

Simple - God SOFTENED Pharaoh's heart. And then allowed it to go back to its normal state.

Yeah, and the reason we have such horrific cold weather some times is because of global warming.

 

[fastfredy0]

Interesting post. But you’re overthinking it.

"Thinking" is not one of my strong points.

 

[Carbon]

It might be similar to God sending a delusion.
2nd Thes 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
The preceding verse give a reason.... because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them.
Why? in order that judgment may come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness....which I believe Pharaoh qualified as.

And pharaoh could have believed that the plagues were fake, and the Hebrews never really left with Moses if he wanted to. But that’s not the point. All of that was done for God’s glory. Pharaoh needed to be hardened, so he was. Pharaoh hardened his own heart, God hardened his heart. Yes God is totally innocent in that. How do?

Just as when God sent nations to attack and kill the Israelites. Even though they were raised up for those pacific purposes and sent by God they are still accountable and guilty.

 

[Carbon]

@Carbon ... next time pose an easier question like "why did the chicken cross the street" or "why does an object reach infinite length as it approaches the speed of light".

But we all know why the chicken crossed the road.

 

[Carbon]

Simple - God SOFTENED Pharaoh's heart. And then allowed it to go back to its normal state.

If God can soften a heart, and He could. Why in some cases is it temporary?

 

[Arial]

Yes, just imagine that for a moment. Jesus was crucified, why, because we missed the mark. It wasn’t a holy God who was offended, we just missed the mark. Not so serious.

Exactly!

 

[makesends]

fastfredy0 said:
Sin (evil) does not exist. It is the lack of righteousness in a person/spirit.

Evil is nothing. It is not a thing that has existence. It is an action of something that is a thing. When I do something that is not good, then I am doing something that is evil, but evil then is an activity of some being. It has no being of itself. R.C.Sproul
If Augustine's approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion.

First:
1) All things that God created are good;
2) evil is not good;
3) therefore, evil was not created by God.

Second:
1) God created everything;
2) God did not create evil;
3) therefore, evil is not a thing.

I agree, but that does not preclude that God caused that there be evil.

We say that evil is the 'privation of good', which is a careful way of saying what you said, done to mitigate false equivalencies some might draw from saying it in such ways as 'opposition to good'.

But I think it can rightly be said that evil is a principle or a fact, both of which are either directly or indirectly caused by God. I also remind us that evil is given in at least poetic language in scripture an apparent nature at times, crouching at the door, desiring to have us, ruling over us, and related causally to suffering and death.

If darkness can be dealt with in causal language, so can sin. And I think God caused the "what is" —i.e. the arrangement of fact and reality— that we speak of as causing or resulting in moral evil. Thus, we in our stunted thinking (and speaking) can reasonably say that God caused that there be sin.

Occurs to me to ask, "Does sin have ontology?" Does darkness?

I'm inviting @Josheb to chime in here, with his clear mind.

 

[Carbon]

"Thinking" is not one of my strong points.

I think it is

 

[makesends]

"Thinking" is not one of my strong points.

Oh no! You usually agree with me! Now I have to rethink my whole paradigm!