It has been stated that, in order to accomplish his purposes, God will sometimes show mercy even to men who have hardened their own hearts. It has been suggested, however, that even if God does have mercy upon such men, this mercy will only be effective if they are willing to accept it. The implication, then, is that the fulfillment of God’s merciful purposes upon hard-hearted men is, to some degree at least, dependent upon hard-hearted men’s willingness to accept God’s mercy.
Let us imagine a scenario in which God’s attempt at showing mercy is met with the kind of resistance here described. Let us imagine that God sets his attention upon some hard-hearted man, determining that, instead of further hardening him, he will have mercy upon him. He offers his mercy to the man, only to find that the man is unwilling to accept it. What are to become of God's purposes? Are they to be thwarted? What are we to suppose that God might do in such a situation?
It would seem there are only two things God can do. He could just give up, deciding not to accomplish his purpose and perhaps move on to some hard-hearted man more willing to accept his mercy. But what if God really insisted upon having his way in a particular case? What if he was truly adamant about accomplishing his merciful purposes in this particular hard-hearted man? Would God’s determination be of any avail? Would there really be anything God could do in such a situation?
We might first consider what success here would require. If God’s mercy can only be effective upon men who are willing to receive it, then, of course, the only way he could accomplish his purpose would be to make the man willing to receive his mercy. But this is a tall order; after all, we’re talking here about a man who has already hardened his own heart. We’re taking about someone who wants to do evil, who has committed himself to do it, someone who has decided to reject God. How could God possibly make such a person willing to accept his mercy?
Certainly, the only way God could ever make a man (especially a hard-hearted man) willing to do something he was formerly unwilling to do would be to change his heart. Men's desires are determined by their hearts. Pure, soft hearts give rise to good desires, and defiled, hardened hearts give rise to evil desires. Therefore, if God is to have any hope of accomplishing his merciful purposes in a hard-hearted man, if God should ever expect to make a man willing to receive his mercy, it can only be through changing his hardened heart.
But would God ever go so far as to change a man’s heart? Would God really take a man who desires evil and cause him to desire good? Would God really ever be so bold as to tamper with a man’s will?...
24 comments:
is this the part where i use my own personal testimony to answer "yes" to all the questions in the final paragraph?
or should i save that for "closing arguments?"
I would distinguish between different kinds of purposes myself. Broad purposes for His creation and narrower purposes of his election. As to specific mechanics, I'm starting to be much more skeptical of the traditional answers and maybe even of the questions.
Oh yeah? Well maybe I'll just have to be skeptical of your skepticism. :)
How've you guys been?
Hey Brad, How confident are you that you understand the concept of hardening. In at least one verse I can remember the disciples were said to have had hard hearts. They were right smack in the middle of receiving God's mercy while yet their hearts were hard. How can this be?
Your Friend M squared.
Well Anna, I'm sure I'm far from understanding it fully; for a complete understanding you'll have to ask your dad what Bishop Wright has to say on the matter.
But I do think the disciples' example demonstrates that hardness of heart is not always total, nor does God's mercy always remove it immediately and instantly.
The disciples' hardness of heart kept them, not from believing in Christ, but from fully understanding his teaching. And the mercy they were receiving in Christ's teaching did not work like a switch, but rather as a process by which that hardness was ultimately removed after his resurrection.
"How could God possibly make such a person willing to accept his mercy??
By the work of the Holy Spirit.
I think we agree on this - however I would have to disagree that God has willed anyone to hell and damnation.
Eric,
First, regarding your other comments- yes, I believe God causes evil. He does so, of course, without being morally responsible therefor.
Second, why do you disagree that God has willed anyone to hell and damnation?
Doesn't that seem to contradict much of the New Testament's words that it's God's will that 'none should perish, but all come to repentance'?
I acknowledge that there are passages of scripture that speak of God's general unwillingness to send people to hell, but I am unaware of any that teach he is never willing to send anyone to hell.
For example, the general statement you quote from II Peter 3:9 is limited by the immediately preceding "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you..." I don't think this allows the "...not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" to be taken in a universal sense.
Hmmm...I don't see that whatsoever - 'not wishing that any should perish' means what it says. The preceding statement is saying, if anything, that it's not God's will for any to go to hell. And, of course, that is one of several scriptures that speak of God's desire for all to be saved.
Are you saying that while God says it's not His will that anyone should go to hell, that indeed, it is His will that some go to hell?
That's going to require some real scriptural 'gerry-mandering' to prove that - it that indeed is what you mean.
Certainly, "not wishing that any should perish" means what it says, but just as certainly, it doesn't mean what it doesn't say.
I've no doubt you understand that words like "any" or "all" cannot just automatically be taken to refer to every single member of the human race. Like every other word in scripture, they have to be interpreted in context. The question in any given occurrence, of course, is "any or all of whom?"
You obviously don't see "patient toward you" as an answer to that question in this case; and frankly, I'm at a loss to understand why you don't.
Hmmm...it seems you are adding to the meaning of 'all' and 'any' then. Where in this passage is the 'all' qualified to mean 'all of some people'? Patient towards you - yes, patient towards the reader - Why? Because God doesn't want any human to go to hell and wants all to repent. That's why He was patient with me & you - it stems from His overarching desire that no human go to hell.
When you walk into a store and see a sign that says, "We treat you right" - obviously it means every person - not you just you personally or a select few of their choosing. Because of that pledge to treat people right - they treat you personally right.
Again, in other place like 1 Timothy 2, Paul states: "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
It would seem that you are trying to make the scripture fit your doctrine rather than your doctrine fit the scripture, with all due respect.
But II Peter isn't written to everyone walking into a store; it's written to "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."
Yes, because it's God's will for none to perish, for all to come to repentance. If the Good News isn't for all people, then it isn't Good News, bro. We can't make the Bible fit our doctrine - our doctrine must fit the Bible. John Calvin, as great a scholar as he was, had this point wrong.
I take it when a Calvinist says that they are a "three point, or 4 point" Calvinist that it is this "limited atonement" point that they can't buy?
All right, I've been trying to just respond with Bible verse sniper fire and trying to avoid answers that required a great deal of explanation, but I know this isn't an issue that can effectively be dealt with in such a piecemeal fashion.
So leaving aside, for now, the question of the scope of "all" or "any" in these two verses, and just assuming, for the sake of argument, that Paul and Peter are referring to every single human being who has ever lived and will ever live, I'll ask the obvious question, and we'll see where it takes us: If God is truly unwilling that any single person who has ever lived should go to hell, how does it happen that he does in fact send untold billions of persons to hell?
In other words, in what sense can God be said to be willing to do what he doesn't do and unwilling to do what he does?
I'll add one more thought: If God clearly does what he is unwilling to do, why should he also not foreordain to do what he is unwilling to do?
Yes, most partial Calvinists reject Limited Atonement.
Does God 'send them' to hell, or do they send themselves because they reject Him? Even so, if it is God who is sending them, it is because they rejected His offer of eternal life. My point is they still had opportunity at some level.
Since we're created in God's image - when my kids mess up and I have to biblically chastise them (spank), is that my will that they messed up and I had to punish them? Not at all - they brought that on themselves by their disobedience.
In the same sense God wants all to be saved, yet not all will be saved. I don't see whatsoever that this thought lessens God's power or authority in any way - in fact makes it even greater imho, because in His great love and power, He gives man free will to either choose or reject this great offer of salvation.
For God to 'will' anyone to hell, would make them no longer responsible for their rejecting God, as then it would be God's fault that they rejected Him. This absolutely defies the definition of a just God. God could not be just and have people in the lake of fire who had zero chance of ever knowing Him because He foreordained them to damnation. That would be a huge scriptural contradiction.
Foreknowledge isn't the same as foreordination.
True or false:
God can save whomever he wants whenever he wants.
are you suggesting with this statement that salvation is forced?
Let me ask you this - could Jesus have saved Himself on the cross?
Yes, Jesus could have saved himself on the cross.
Sorry, I meant to phrase my earlier comment as a question for you: Can God save whomever he wants whenever he wants or can he not?
BTW, let's move the discussion to my most recent post, if you don't mind. It'll make it look like I'm actually blogging again.
lol...shall I put my response up there then?
Yes. You'll find some of us waiting for you there :-)
Post a Comment