Does God Change Our Hearts, or Do We?

Icarus · Post by **Icarus** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:44 am

Essentially this question I think comes down to Free Will vs. Determism.

Does God change our hearts or do we?

I am of the opinion that God does not either predetermined or by force himself on anyone. I believe God pokes, prods, guides, talks to, reveals, etc... a person and THAT person makes the choice to follow God and allow God into their heart.

If it is God who changes our hearts then we all have been forced to do something beyond our will and are mere forced slave type servants. As opposed to willfully submitting our lives for service.

I believe the Bible says and implies that Salvation is different than the choice to be saved. Repentance and its root words essentially say that the word means to change your mind. To change your thinking. Salvation is a benefit of that, not an enabling event into heaven. Much like choosing to swim to a life boat. The life boat is the salvation, but you decided to swim to it.

Other views?

Icarus · Post by **Icarus** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:06 am

Sir the Scriptures say that God hardened Pharaoh\'s heart.

While I enjoy the "sir" part, it makes me feel officially old.
If I may adjust your statement, the English Scriptures use the word term "I will harden..." but as Clark and Scolfield stated, this is a bit of an English misstatement. Reading the entire Scripture text/story you see that P was well on his way to being stubborn and proud. While technically the English states that God is doing it, the implication by the whole story is that God is removing any object in P's way towards an even harder heart that P was already well achieving.

Would you then, in saying \'the removal of sustaining grace is attributed to God\', be saying that the act of hardening is attributed to God?

Again no. I think you are not seeing the dividing line. Because I take my hand off of my child's bicycle seat while she is still learning to ride, and she crashes does not mean I caused her to crash. She requested that "she can do it" multiple times and thought she could do it without me. I allowed her to find out. But I did not crash her.

Is hardening Pharaoh\'s heart by God the same as \'the removal of sustaining grace\' by God? Or are these two completely different things?

This statement twists the words a bit again at the opener. God did not actually harden P's heart.
But the hardening and removal of grace are completely different.

...if we are going to be true to Scripture we still have to say that God hardened Pharaoh\'s heart.

If we are going to be true to Scripture we are going to read the original texts in the original languages. The word term used in the original needs a long explanation in English. Which translators did a fine job with. The trouble we are dealing with is the technical inference you are using on this term to my overall context and "getting" what the author meant with the word term.

[quote}
Read the account of Job. Satan caused all the suffering to come upon Job, yet the suffering is also attributed to God. I think the parallel is here.[/quote]

Excellent point. Very good parallel. The same is happening here. God is not causing the suffering, he is allowing the suffering. Satan asks God to remove his protection around Job. Same here I guess. We could posit that "Satan asked God to remove P's common restraints" in a way.

... we still must say that God hardened Pharaoh\'s heart, as did Pharaoh.

Or would you still disagree??

In what you are saying, then we must also say that God is responsible for Evil in the world. We must also say that God caused rape. God caused sin.

Philosophically arguing that is where you are headed.

sofyst · Post by **sofyst** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:15 pm

Sir, I apologize for using 'Sir'...doh! I did it again. Just kidding. I have found that oft times it is received without notice but sometimes it does create a spirit of uneasiness as some feel the use of this simple word is making the coversation too official...odd methinks, but I will concede and avoid the use (please do not fault me if I fail every now and then).

This is where I want to focus our discussion:

Excellent point. Very good parallel. The same is happening here. God is not causing the suffering, he is allowing the suffering. Satan asks God to remove his protection around Job. Same here I guess. We could posit that "Satan asked God to remove P's common restraints" in a way.

If you agree that this parallel is indeed a parallel then you should concede that you have been mistaken in your wording of your argumentation. Let us consider the account of Job for a brief moment. If we read the first chapter of Job we find a basic introduction of Job and his children (1:1-5). We then find an odd account of Satan coming before the Lord (1:6-12), which finally ends in God giving the power to Satan over Job (1:12). We then find an awful ordeal told Job about all his children being smitten (1:13-19). The chapter ends with a most revealing statement from Job, 'Jehovah gave, and Jehovah hath taken away; blessed be the name of Jehovah.' (1:21). And unless one make the faulty assumption that Job was erred in attributed the loss of his children to God, the chapter ends with a response against this grevious error, 'In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.' (1:22)

Now, let us consider the facts that we are presented with.
Satan is given within his power all that is Job's (1:12).
All that is Job's is taken away (1:13-19).
Job mourns and says the LORD has taken it away (1:21).
Job is specifically said not to have sinned or charged God foolishly (1:22).

Therefore we have an act of Satan (taking of the children) attributed to God.

Or would you still disagree and say my reading is quite faulty? If so, I encourage you to just read the second chapter of Job where Satan is given the ability to inflict Job's person now (2:6) and he does with sore boils (2:7), yet when asked if he would just curse God and die, Job oddly questions whether we should accept only the good from God and not the evil (2:10). And once again Job is not attributed with sin, he is said to have not sinned with his lips (2:10).

If the parallel is to be drawn it is that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is done by Pharaoh (as Job's suffering is caused by Satan), yet it can still be said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart (as it can be said that the Lord took away) without committing some grevious error or sinning.

I do not understand why you are so adament against saying that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart when the text specifically states that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart in numerous places.

This statement twists the words a bit again at the opener. God did not actually harden P's heart.
But the hardening and removal of grace are completely different.

If the hardening and removal of grace are completely different things, and if God did not actually harden Pharaoh's heart then your qualms are not with me but with Scripture. The Scriptures claim that God hardened Pharaoh's heart; if you so choose to say that this hardening was done on the part of God by the removal of grace then sobeit. Yet you cannot make the false claim and say that God removed His grace yet did not harden Pharaoh's heart; then you would be testifying against the Scripture.

I will fully concede for discussion purposes that God hardened Pharaoh's heart by the removal of His grace. Yet I cannot concede that God did not harden Pharaoh's heart as we are specifically told that He did.

If we are going to be true to Scripture we are going to read the original texts in the original languages. The word term used in the original needs a long explanation in English. Which translators did a fine job with. The trouble we are dealing with is the technical inference you are using on this term to my overall context and "getting" what the author meant with the word term.

Fine then let us tackle the original languages. Exodus 9:34 read within English states 'he sinned again and hardened his heart'. The word hardened there is כבד. Let us then look at Exodus 10:1, it is the LORD speaking, 'Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart'. The word hardened there is כבד. We find the very same act attributed to both Pharaoh as well as the LORD in the proximity of two verses. There is no doubt that this very same act is being ascribed to both the LORD and the Pharaoh.

I do not understand how the overall context can in any way change the exact reading that is literally set before us. Even if the author intended to convey the message that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was an active role done by Pharaoh and only a removal of God's grace done by God, we would still be left with the plain fact that the author still says the this removal of Grace is to be labeled as hardening.

Icarus · Post by **Icarus** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:36 pm

I think the parallel with Job strengthens my case. Both Job and Pharaoh, CHOSE to either serve or get bitter when God's Grace was removed. They still BOTH had a CHOICE.

If in your argument, we have no choice ultimately, then God condemns people for God's own actions. Not a God we should serve do you think? God is not Bi-polar. As well as in your argument then God uses Irresistible Forces to have us fulfill a story that only he will enjoy.

My understanding of God is that he would not condemn a person for an action that person cannot control. If we cannot control a sin because God guided us into that sin. Then I cannot chose not to follow him either. Nor is there any guarantee that I will make it to heaven, because he may chose to use me as P did in this Predetermined Story.

Even if the author intended to convey the message that the hardening of Pharaoh\'s heart was an active role done by Pharaoh and only a removal of God\'s grace done by God, we would still be left with the plain fact that the author still says the this removal of Grace is to be labeled as hardening.

According to your argument's reading of literal word without context and intent, then Genesis 2:16 "And the Lord God gave the man orders, saying, You may freely take of the fruit of every tree of the garden:" CONFLICTS WITH Genesis 2:17 "But of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evilyou may not take; ..." In 2:16 the Author explicitly uses the word EVERY.

You must also rectify Exodus 35:29 "The children of Israel, every man and woman, from the impulse of their hearts, gave their offerings freely to the Lord for the work which the Lord had given Moses orders to have done." Your argument from my understanding would state that God prompted the impulse to give. So it wasn't the People, it was God. Let alone God gave ORDERS to have the work done. So why are the people freely doing it? Wouldn't there be an option to do the work?

sofyst · Post by **sofyst** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:48 am

I think the parallel with Job strengthens my case. Both Job and Pharaoh, CHOSE to either serve or get bitter when God's Grace was removed. They still BOTH had a CHOICE.

Slow down Sir. Let us stick with one issue at a time. Would you agree or disagree that the account in Job attributes an action of Satan to God?

Icarus · Post by **Icarus** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:40 pm

I do not understand your reasoning here. The Scripture clearly says that God hardened Pharaoh\'s heart. It is specifically stated. It is literally there. Unless there can be given sufficient reasoning as to why we should not take this literally, we must take it literally. You have offered no such reasoning. Only that it is not so that we should read it as it specifically says.

Actually I did, read the Clarke statement on the issue.

Besides, Genesis 2:16 in no way conflicts with 2:17. Really, you are a much more intelligent being than that. If I were to tell you that you can eat everything you want EXCEPT this cookie, my statement would not be contradictory within itself. The Lord said to Adam that he may eat of EVERY tree except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Lord sets up the exceptions right up front. This is not a contradiction, even if it is taken literally.

My point exactly. You are telling me that I should take in the rest of the story/statement. Which is what I am stating to you about Exodus.

A point of clarification on what you just said, God DID NOT put the exception right up front, he did it after he already said "every". Not only that he is stating the exception in a completely different sentence. Not in the same one as you have done, which of course would be a normal english understanding.

I was using your argument: "It is specifically stated. It is literally there. Unless there can be given sufficient reasoning as to why we should not take this literally, we must take it literally". I am stating that your argument is being stringent with "literal usage" in Exodus but liberal with "literal usage" in Genesis.

But other than that for the rest of your post...

nnnk I think I am confused then.

My understanding of your position was:

1) God actively hardened Pharaoh's heart.
2) Pharaoh sinned while he had a hardened heart by God.
3) God punished Pharaoh for his sins (under the hardened heart).

If this is true then God is responsible for Pharaoh's actions.

If my understanding of your position is wrong please give me a short single sentence formula 1), 2), 3).

Thanks. I am enjoying the discussion.
And Sir Sofyst, you can call me Icarus, we are of same stature here.
(which by the way, is Sofyst a different way to spell Sophist? Or Sophism? If it is I find the humor in it given the argument

)

sofyst · Post by **sofyst** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:07 am

My point exactly. You are telling me that I should take in the rest of the story/statement. Which is what I am stating to you about Exodus.

A point of clarification on what you just said, God DID NOT put the exception right up front, he did it after he already said "every". Not only that he is stating the exception in a completely different sentence. Not in the same one as you have done, which of course would be a normal english understanding.

I was using your argument: "It is specifically stated. It is literally there. Unless there can be given sufficient reasoning as to why we should not take this literally, we must take it literally". I am stating that your argument is being stringent with "literal usage" in Exodus but liberal with "literal usage" in Genesis.

I understand you much better now. As I was positing that we should read 'God hardened Pharaoh's heart' in its most literal form; you were then stating that we should read 'You may eat of every tree' in its most literal form. And as I posited that we should look beyond the sentence of 'You may eat of every tree' to see exactly what 'every' entails; you were stating that we should should look beyond 'God hardened Pharaoh's heart' to see exactly what 'hardens' entails. Is this correct.

While I could offer up the argument that in the Genesis account the definition of 'every' is given directly after it is stated; whereas within the Exodus account we do not seem to be told as definitely what 'hardens' entails. Nonetheless, let us forget this for a moment and move on to what our discussion is really about, rather than getting bogged down with the issue of what exactly 'hardens' means. (I do make the disclaimer that while I think our idea of 'hardens' is very important to our understanding of the actions of God, I recognize that it is yet a subsequent issue that will undoubtedly be rehearsed again at a later time.)

1) God actively hardened Pharaoh's heart.
2) Pharaoh sinned while he had a hardened heart by God.
3) God punished Pharaoh for his sins (under the hardened heart).

If this is true then God is responsible for Pharaoh's actions.

I would agree that my position entails the ideas that:

1) God actively hardened Pharaoh's heart.
2) Pharaoh sinned while he had a hardened heart by God.
3) God punished Pharaoh for his sins (under the hardened heart).

While I agree with these three propositions, I would however make slight changes. My formula would rather look like this:

1) Pharaoh's heart was hardened.
1a) God actively hardened Pharaoh's heart.
1b) Pharaoh actively hardened his own heart.
2) Pharaoh sinned BECAUSE he had a hardened heart (which was hardened by himself and God).
3) God punished Pharaoh for his sins (which were a direct consequence of his hardened heart).

Now then, let us discuss why you would view that God's active involvement in the hardening of Pharaoh's heart would make Him (God) responsible for Pharaoh's actions.

Let me attempt to relinquish these thoughts.

We would both agree that God punished Pharaoh for his sins. Would we not? Just as we would agree that God punishes all sins. Wouldn't we?

Now if we both agree that God punished Pharaoh's sins, just as He punished/punishes/will punish all sins, let us then make a propositional statement that we can all agree on.

(1) God punishes sin.

Now then, let us continue with our thought. Pharaoh's hardened heart led to his sin. Would you agree? I think that you would, and that you must. Therefore, let us make yet another propositional statement. that we can all agree on.

(2) The hardening of Pharaoh's heart led to his sin.

Now, let us review. We have two statements.

(1) God punishes sin.
(2) The hardening of Pharaoh's heart led to his sin.

For a brief moment let us hold the first statement, and put the second aside. We must do so for our discussion to continue, and for learning to occur.

Now, with the idea that God punishes sin, let us review a basic thought that I think we could both agree on. Namely that God created man. I do not really think you could disagree on this, if you did, I do not think our discussion need continue as we have much bigger things to discuss than the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. So we have an idea within our minds that we both agree on. God created man.

Let us then continue with this thought and think a little further. The creation of man led to sin. Would you agree? I think you must. As it is not really up for discussion. Man was created, then man sinned. If man had not been created, man would have not sinned, as he would have not been a creature to sin. Would you agree? Therefore we have another statement that we should all agree on.

(2a) The creation of man led to his sin.

Now, let us review. We first came up with these two sets of propositions:

(1) God punishes sin.
(2) The hardening of Pharaoh's heart led to his sin.

We then divided our thought and produced another set of propositions.

(1) God punishes sin.
(2a) The creation of man led to his sin.

I think you can see the similarity. They are almost identical, and I do not see any reason why you would disagree with them in any sense.

Therefore, given the second set of propositions, I would ask you a question. Is God responsible for the sins of man based upon the fact that He created them? The creation of man led to his sin. If you would not fault God for man's sin based upon the idea that God created man, why then do you fault him for Pharaoh's sin based upon the idea that God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

We have two similarities. The creation of man led to his sin, just as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart led to his sin. Now, if God is not responsible for the sin of man even though He is actively involved in the creation of man, then He is not responsible for the sin of Pharaoh even though He is actively involved in the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.

Thanks. I am enjoying the discussion.
And Sir Sofyst, you can call me Icarus, we are of same stature here.
(which by the way, is Sofyst a different way to spell Sophist? Or Sophism? If it is I find the humor in it given the argument )

Icarus, I do not think we would be of the same stature, perhaps status, yet not stature, I am a very short guy!

:)

Yes Sofyst is a different spelling of Sophist. I had attempted to get a address for my blog with the name Sophist yet it was unavailable, so I decided to use my creativity and spell it differently.

I do not quite understand why you would find humor in it given the argument. Please explain that to me.

Icarus · Post by **Icarus** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:06 pm

Sofyst,
My apologies again for the delay. I have been very busy with "stuff".

The creation of man led to sin. Would you agree? I think you must. As it is not really up for discussion. Man was created, then man sinned. If man had not been created, man would have not sinned, as he would have not been a creature to sin. Would you agree? Therefore we have another statement that we should all agree on.

(2a) The creation of man led to his sin.

I must point out a logic flaw or two here. Quite a few Category Mistakes are made: "the creation of man led to sin" is wrong. Saying such is equal to saying that creation of the wheel is the cause of car accidents. Creating man did not lead to sin. "Man was created, then man sinned" does not carry the burden of creating being the cause of sin. Or that it even led to sin. You are using a Non Sequitur.

"If man had not been created, man would have not sinned, as he would have not been a creature to sin" is also category mistake in logic. You cannot compare a Nothing to a Something. It is like comparing Apples to Non-Apples insisting that Non-Apples taste better.

(If I do understand what you are attempting to say though in that paragraph overall, then I would say that the allowance of freewill entails the choice to sin. but Creation nor God are the Cause of sin.)

(1) God punishes sin.
(2a) The creation of man led to his sin.

I think you can see the similarity. They are almost identical, and I do not see any reason why you would disagree with them in any sense.

You missed the category mistakes you are making. Which defeats the reasoning, logic and conclusion.

... Is God responsible for the sins of man based upon the fact that He created them? The creation of man led to his sin. If you would not fault God for man's sin based upon the idea that God created man, why then do you fault him for Pharaoh's sin based upon the idea that God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

We have two similarities. The creation of man led to his sin, just as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart led to his sin. Now, if God is not responsible for the sin of man even though He is actively involved in the creation of man, then He is not responsible for the sin of Pharaoh even though He is actively involved in the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.

Here you are using A Fortiori which again does not have a foundation for its claim. You've made some category mistakes that lead to a false conclusion that then turned into using that false conclusion to say "if this is true, how much more is that true".

I do not quite understand why you would find humor in it [sophist / sophism] given the argument. Please explain that to me.

Uhmm. I think you should read the full meaning from several sources. The one you have on your blog is only the first part. Read a philosophy dictionary on the subject. I'll leave it at that. If you still don't get why I found humor in it, I'll fess up.

It may take another good bit for me to reply back, I've got more work to attend to. I have my own business. So PM me if you want a faster reply.
Thanks.

sofyst · Post by **sofyst** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:14 am

I must point out a logic flaw or two here. Quite a few Category Mistakes are made: "the creation of man led to sin" is wrong. Saying such is equal to saying that creation of the wheel is the cause of car accidents. Creating man did not lead to sin. "Man was created, then man sinned" does not carry the burden of creating being the cause of sin. Or that it even led to sin. You are using a Non Sequitur.

Oh I understand quite well what you are saying, yet disagree completely.

I never said the creation of man caused the sin; only that it led to the sin.

Just as the creation of the wheel is not the cause of car accidents; it can nonetheless be said that the creation of the wheel led to car accidents.

The creation of man did not cause sin; yet it can be said that the creation of man led to sin.

"If man had not been created, man would have not sinned, as he would have not been a creature to sin" is also category mistake in logic. You cannot compare a Nothing to a Something. It is like comparing Apples to Non-Apples insisting that Non-Apples taste better.

This is not a mistaken logic. If there were no man, there would be no man. This is the entire statement. If there were no man, there would be no man to act as a man, to do manly actions. Therefore if sin is a manly action (considering for the point of conversation that this is the only sin we are speaking of, barring the sin of Lucifer and the other angels) and there were no man, there could be no manly actions.

It is just like saying if there was no apple tree there would be no apples. If there was no man there would be no manly sin. This is not faulty logic.

(If I do understand what you are attempting to say though in that paragraph overall, then I would say that the allowance of freewill entails the choice to sin. but Creation nor God are the Cause of sin.)

Then you do not understand what I have been trying to say. I have no where said that creation nor God are the cause of sin. I have specifically used the word 'led' to describe the relationship between the creation and sin. Being created led to sinning. It did not cause the sin, man caused the sin. But creation is but a point on a chain of influences that affected the sinning, that LED to the sinning.

Me moving to Texas led to me atteding college at A&M. It was not the sole cause of my attedance of school there, but it was a factor that led to the end.

Icarus · Post by **Icarus** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:28 am

It is still a category mistake. Wether you agree or not. You cannot compare Nothing to Something. No matter how you dress it up. I don't wish to sound condecending here, but check your logic in a philosophy class or teacher at your school.

The rest of your post is using a long hand version of the Law of Cause and Effect. You are ultimately equating a connection to the events. Hence the Cause.

Your argument is a form of Predestination. Which I disagree with. I am of the opinion that all is Free Will. Otherwise God is not the God of love.

RevJP · Post by **RevJP** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:25 pm

I was just lurking, but I have to say, Sofyst's logic is sound. It is the argument against which seems to be faulty. Perhaps it is a perception problem due to avenue of attack. The faulty approach is to attack the issue from the premise to try and prove the premise. It seems to me that sophist is approaching the issue and arriving at a conclusion.

Just an outsiders opinion...