Paul taught that Revelation 20:4 was a current reality

[Timtofly]

Basically, Dispensationalism posits that God made a Plan A, and that didn't work, so He then made a Plan B, and that didn't work either, so he made a Plan C, and that didn't work either... The number of Plans varies among people who "understand" Scripture in this dispensational way; four, five, seven...

Not even what I posted. I said God can change His mind, not make plans that fail, so He had to keep making better plans.

God's mind was to call out Abraham. God's mind was to wrestle with Jacob and change His name to Israel. God's mind was to set up an OT economy. Calling those plans shadows is no different than dispensational thought, because obviously they were incomplete , a nicer term than failures, but still short of the goal.

I was pointing out that God decided one way for man after changing His mind. The Atonement was the original plan. The Law was of a different mind set than the NT Covenant. For lack of a better description God changed His mind. I already pointed out that two opposing mindsets would create instability.

You already are confused about the elect. Because the elect were not shadows of what was to come. Israel was naturally more elect than all other human nations. The excuse was the other nations were blinded by Satan. No they were not called out by God at that point. God always knew that He would eventually call the whole world. But that was a change of mind from our perspective, at the Cross, when the OT Covenant was finished and over, and the NT Covenant was instated.

 

[Timtofly]

There is also the example of Peter. Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him, which happened just a few hours in the future. Peter’s will was not to deny as he expressed in Matthew 26:35.

Now if Peter had the free will to choose not to deny Christ after being told he would, then Jesus tempted or tested God by allowing the possibility of His word to be untrue. If Jesus knew the future and that Peter would only remember after the cock crew then Peter didn’t have the free will to prevent the denial, meaning no amount of will power on Peter’s part could’ve prevented the denial.

This is not a teaching point against free will. Free will is not about preventing sin. Why do you all keep saying that? Peter never made the choice. Peter acted out of his sin nature, not out of some ability to stop and choose what action he would take. Free will is not about having power.

 

[grafted branch]

This is not a teaching point against free will. Free will is not about preventing sin. Why do you all keep saying that? Peter never made the choice. Peter acted out of his sin nature, not out of some ability to stop and choose what action he would take. Free will is not about having power.

I would agree that Peter’s denial isn’t necessarily a teaching point against free will. But Peter’s denial then has to have some other teaching point.

We have in Daniel 7:25 and they (saints) shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Also Revelation 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them.

If you want to insist that humans have free will and that God doesn’t force His will on humans, then Peter’s will was “overcome” or “given into his hand”. From 2 Corinthians 4:4 we know that the god of this world can blind a person’s mind, meaning Satan can force his will on humans, namely unbelievers. Incidentally in order to have complete free will neither God nor Satan can force their will on humans.

So if you want to keep the free will idea then Peters denial either takes place when the saints are overcome or it was a foreshadow of a future time when the saints are overcome.

 

[Timtofly]

I would agree that Peter’s denial isn’t necessarily a teaching point against free will. But Peter’s denial then has to have some other teaching point.

We have in Daniel 7:25 and they (saints) shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Also Revelation 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them.

If you want to insist that humans have free will and that God doesn’t force His will on humans, then Peter’s will was “overcome” or “given into his hand”. From 2 Corinthians 4:4 we know that the god of this world can blind a person’s mind, meaning Satan can force his will on humans, namely unbelievers. Incidentally in order to have complete free will neither God nor Satan can force their will on humans.

So if you want to keep the free will idea then Peters denial either takes place when the saints are overcome or it was a foreshadow of a future time when the saints are overcome.

The only point made is that the flesh will do, without thinking, what the flesh will do.

You are not even including the point why Jesus even said that to Peter:

"And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.. But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I."

Jesus said that no one would stand by Him, because they were not yet ready to go the distance. Peter said he was ready. Jesus said, nope. Jesus was not telling Peter that he had to deny Jesus. Jesus was just pointing out that Peter would fall to the flesh's desire to take the easy road out and see Jesus as an offense, instead of his Lord and Messiah. Peter had been with Jesus, but was not given the power of the Holy Spirit. The Cross had not even happened yet, and Peter was still under the OT economy. John 18:10-11

"Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?"

Even that was a fleshly impulse. Peter was relying on the flesh to follow Jesus to the end. Jesus took the time, even though being arrested, to restore that person's ear. It was not about relying on the flesh to stand in the time of temptation. Peter learned that the hard way, and twice in one night.

The point that Jesus made was not just about being offended, but a prophecy from an OT prophet. Jesus was pointing out He had to die on the Cross, and that no one, not even His closest 12 disciples could stop it, and would even run and hide. Peter was changing the prophecy, by not running away, but still taking matters into his own hands by even sitting by that fire. Jesus was just pointing out that nothing Peter could do would change who Peter was. To add to the point he should have ran away, Jesus said that Peter would outright deny Him as well.

Prophecy still happened, and Jesus was pointing out to Peter that trusting in the flesh, would make matters even worse.

Just to add that free will is not acting on impulse either. Free will only works when presented with a choice. The theology that claims there is no free will, does not even follow the established definition of what free will is. Free will is not doing one's own will in opposition to God.

free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

This is basically the argument of determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

The theological response is calvanism which agrees in theory.

Now many may claim that free will means one can do anything, but the point is there is a choice involved, not just freedom. That is proven from the very first law. That was Adam's choice to obey God or disobey God. That was a free will choice without constraint to be predisposed one way or the other. Now that Adam disobeyed, sin became the default constraint. We had to choose not to sin, not that we are forced to sin. If we act on impulse that which is natural, that is not a choice. Unless one stops and makes a decision to obey a law, they may or may not act out of impulse.

 

[grafted branch]

The only point made is that the flesh will do, without thinking, what the flesh will do.

free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

I can’t tell whether you think Peter had free will to prevent his denial or not after being told he would deny.

Matthew 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Certainly Peter was aware of the consequences of denying, so constraint of fate is present when someone denies Jesus, right?

Just to add that free will is not acting on impulse either. Free will only works when presented with a choice.

Peter wasn’t presented with a choice, he was told specifically what he was going to do and given a specific indicator of the cock crowing. Based on your statement, wouldn’t you agree that Peter did not have the free will to prevent the denial? Just as the saints have no free will in the matter of being given into his hand in Daniel 7:25?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I can’t tell whether you think Peter had free will to prevent his denial or not after being told he would deny.

Matthew 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Certainly Peter was aware of the consequences of denying, so constraint of fate is present when someone denies Jesus, right?


Peter wasn’t presented with a choice, he was told specifically what he was going to do and given a specific indicator of the cock crowing. Based on your statement, wouldn’t you agree that Peter did not have the free will to prevent the denial? Just as the saints have no free will in the matter of being given into his hand in Daniel 7:25?

Peter did not have to deny 3 times. Yes he had free will. He acted out of fear.

 

[grafted branch]

Peter did not have to deny 3 times. Yes he had free will. He acted out of fear.

Alright then did Jesus take a chance that He could be untruthful when He told Peter that he would deny Him?

 

[PinSeeker]

Ok, I’m not trying to push hyper-Calvinism...

Right, I understand, but most people who have such visceral reactions to John Calvin and his theology are really reacting to Hyper-Calvinism, and they don't even realize it.

...but this one specific example of Peter having the foreknowledge that he will do something he doesn’t want to do is an interesting situation.

Peter having the foreknowledge? You mean Jesus, right?

Peter is adamant that he will never deny Christ, and his every intent is not to deny Christ. But when actually faced with it, he decided it was in his best interests to deny being one of Jesus's disciples, and therefore did so. Why? Well for a very human reason... he was protecting himself; he didn't want to incriminate himself and open himself up the same prosecution and/or execution Jesus was enduring. Did anyone make Peter do or say what he did other than Peter himself? No, of course not. So, he exercised his own free will, did he not?

When you say Jesus knew the future I think everyone would agree, no debate about that.

Okay, yes, sure...

When you say that Peter also had the free will to prevent the denial...

He could have done otherwise; he could have chosen to act in a different manner than he did. To think otherwise is really kind of ridiculous. Think of it this way: He lied. Three times, he lied. Well Peter knew very well that one of the commandments of God was not to lie, but he lied anyway... so save himself, really.

that’s where it seems to contradict the idea of what people typically call free will.

Well, I say it doesn't... :) But I do get the "difficulty" with it.

We would all say (I hope) that Peter could have done something besides what he did. Right, but "free will" really shouldn't even enter into the conversation. The Bible never says or insinuates that the will is not free. The state of the heart is really the issue. Who the person really is at heart ~ the condition of the heart ~ is the issue. The heart always, one way or the other, drives the will and the mind, especially with regard to salvation, and then once this salvation is given with regard to living as becomes a follower of Christ. What Paul says in Ephesians 2 ~ that "...by grace you have been saved through faith... this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast... we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand" ~ and Philippians 2 ~ that we "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" ~ are together particularly instructive here... or should be.

For example if I were to tell you that in the next hour you are going to make a post on this forum that you don’t know Jesus. Obviously you could use your free will to simply go get a burger or something and then come back after the hour has passed and make a post stating I’m incorrect.

On the other hand if Jesus Himself said in the next hour you are going to make a post on this forum that you don’t know Jesus, well that’s a different story. If you did go get your burger and not make that post then Jesus was a false prophet, he prophesied something that didn’t come to pass.

These are two different things, really, GB. In these two scenarios, all we're talking about, really, is foretelling the future. You cannot, but Jesus, who is God, can. Neither really has anything at all to do with my will, much less denying that I have one or can or cannot exercise it freely.

I don’t know what kind of definition of free will exists that would allow for the inability to freely reject doing a task when told you will do that task.

The problem is really that our salvation (or lack thereof), is really a matter of the heart, not of the will... or actually, a matter of the will after the matter of the heart. In other words, the will is always subject to the heart, and follows the heart. And the heart is what it is ~ it is in the state it's in from birth ~ because of what Adam decided to do. From birth, as hard as it is to digest, because of what Adam did, we are dead in our sin, and of our father the devil. This is the natural state of man's heart.

But, if at some point we are made alive together with Christ, if we given this "second birth," if we are born again by the Spirit, if our heart of stone is removed and we are given a heart of flesh, if God puts this new spirit within us, then we are of God, and we will not fail to choose rightly. As Paul says in Romans 8, "all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." This is just after he has said, "the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death." So this is a setting free from our former slavery to unrighteousness. As Jesus says in John 8, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin... if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." As Paul says in Romans 8, "

Grace and peace to you, GB.

 

[grafted branch]

@PinSeeker I agree with most of your post, our biggest problem as humans is the Adamic nature that we all inherited. If we are given the second birth then our heart of stone is removed.

He could have done otherwise; he could have chosen to act in a different manner than he did. To think otherwise is really kind of ridiculous. Think of it this way: He lied. Three times, he lied. Well Peter knew very well that one of the commandments of God was not to lie, but he lied anyway... so save himself, really.

Here’s where I have an issue, the idea that Peter could have acted differently and not denied can’t be true. If this idea is correct then it is also correct that some of the things Jesus told us ahead of time can be proven wrong if we just act a certain way.

For example I could say it is possible to serve two masters. By acting a certain way I serve God and acting another way I serve my Adamic nature. If it was possible for Peter not to deny, carrying this idea over, it is also possible to serve two masters at the same time and love them both.

 

[PinSeeker]

...the argument of determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

This is really the problem. I guess we could say that, you know, the weather at any given time "determines" whether I play golf or not. And that's true, but in the event that there is thunder/lightning or it is just raining really hard, did the weather make my decision for me, thereby overriding my free will? Well, in some (silly) manner of speaking, I guess, but no, I decided not to go play golf because I don't want to get electrocuted or just really, really wet... :) But the point is, yes, every decision we make is determined by something outside of ourselves, really. We think what we think and do what we do based on factors outside of ourselves. But we always exercise our will freely... even when we somehow say we were "forced" to do something; in which case, we somehow came to the conclusion that any alternative action or choice was at least somewhat less attractive or unappealing or desirable than the action we did take or the decision we did make.

Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

The theological response is calvanism which agrees in theory.

Now many may claim that free will means one can do anything, but the point is there is a choice involved, not just freedom. That is proven from the very first law. That was Adam's choice to obey God or disobey God. That was a free will choice without constraint to be predisposed one way or the other. Now that Adam disobeyed, sin became the default constraint.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. Our "default constraint," our natural condition, from birth, in bondage to sin and death. And just to carry this out, now, from birth, we are predisposed to choose the other because Adam chose the other (disobeying God). But God can set us free from that disposition, that bondage, thereby changing that predisposition and setting us free from that bondage, and does... for those whom He chooses so to do. How ever "unfair" we may think this to be, this is His right as Creator, as Paul says in Romans 9.

...not that we are forced to sin.

Right; if one says we are forced by God to sin, then that is to say in no uncertain terms that God Himself is sinful, which is... wrong, of course.

If we act on impulse that which is natural, that is not a choice. Unless one stops and makes a decision to obey a law, they may or may not act out of impulse.

No, I would say it's quite possible to make impulsive decisions. People do things without really thinking very, very often... :)

And again, this whole thing of "can" or "can't," or "could have" or "couldn't have"... there are two different contexts for that dichotomy, the first being disabled, or totally incapable, woodenly speaking, and the second being totally disinclined toward something for some reason.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[PinSeeker]

@PinSeeker I agree with most of your post, our biggest problem as humans is the Adamic nature that we all inherited. If we are given the second birth then our heart of stone is removed.

Great!



To what you have said, I'm going to start at the end first:

....it is also possible to serve two masters at the same time and love them both.

What the struggle for agreement between all of us here, GB, is really in what sense we are talking about something being possible and not possible.

So...

Here’s where I have an issue, the idea that Peter could have acted differently and not denied can’t be true.

Well, yes, it can, and it is, from strictly a humanistic perspective, Peter could have done a number of things. He made some decision, whether instinctive, or impulsive, or through conscious thought, to deny Christ, and therefore did what he did... said what he said, all three times.

Now later on, yes, he made a different decision, maybe in light of this one ~ not to deny Christ, and was then crucified for it. And you will remember, I think, that, knowing then that he was going to be crucified, he actually chose to be crucified upside down, because he thought himself unworthy even to be crucified in the manner Christ was.

If this idea is correct then it is also correct that some of the things Jesus told us ahead of time can be proven wrong if we just act a certain way. For example I could say it is possible to serve two masters.

What's happening here, really ~ and it's not just you ~ is a conflation, really, of the two difference senses of something being "possible"... and what that can be applied to, and what it cannot. We can talk about a great many things, all kinds of things, and, with regard to any one of these things, in one sense they will be true, and in another they will not. This is of course not true regarding many things; red is red and blue is blue, for instance (chuckles)... some things are what they are. But surely you know what I mean. Such is the case here.

By acting a certain way I serve God and acting another way I serve my Adamic nature.

Yes, this is the Christian condition, that we have the "new man," as Paul puts it, but we are still struggling to put off the "old." Paul exhorts us in Ephesians 4:

"...put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and ...be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and ...put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."​

This is our new condition, we know not to sin and struggle/strive against it, but because our old nature is still with us still fall short of the mark; we are not perfect in obedience... we still make wrong choices. This is what Paul says in Romans 7 even of himself and is thus true of all Christians:

"I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate... I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."​

But one great day, this will no longer be the case... One great day, we will be (fully) like Christ, and we will never make wrong choices again. That is a certainty, but for now, not so much; this is the now-and-not-yet of the Gospel... the Good News.

Grace and peace to you, GB.

 

[grafted branch]

Well, yes, it can, and it is, from strictly a humanistic perspective, Peter could have done a number of things. He made some decision, whether instinctive, or impulsive, or through conscious thought, to deny Christ, and therefore did what he did... said what he said, all three times.

Ok, from a strictly human viewpoint, that doesn’t know the future, Peter could’ve done a number of things but once it was known what would take place the human perspective doesn’t matter.

From a human perspective every person can be saved and our will is to tell others about the gospel so that they may be saved. From Gods perspective only those written in the book of life, from the foundation of the world, can be saved. If God were to give us the names of those in the book of life our perspective would change, we would no longer have the perspective that maybe our neighbor could be saved if we knew his name wasn’t in the book.

Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Maybe these verses can help. Was it possible for Jesus to get the angels from God? Yes. Was it possible for Jesus to get the angels from God and still be Jesus (the word was with God and the word was God)? No.

Was it possible for Peter to prevent the denial? Yes. Was it possible for Peter to prevent the denial and Jesus to be God (trinity)? No.

Ultimately Jesus is God so it was impossible for Jesus to get the angels and it was impossible for Peter not to make the denial.

 

[PinSeeker]

The elect is the largest group, that is everyone.

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, yes. But not all will, unfortunately... only the ones the Lord calls. As the prophet Joel says and to whom both John and Paul refer directly in John 3 and Romans 10:

"And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls."​

...you have the elect backwards.

That's seems to be true of you, Timtofly.

You think God only chose a few...

In a manner of speaking, but it will actually be an inumerable multitude -- as the stars of heaven, the grains of sand on the seashore, as God told Abraham.

Those He foreknew are the elect...

Yes, that's true, but 'foreknew' is not to be understood as in merely a cognitive, sense, because in that sense, God, the Creator, knows everyone beforehand. No, when Paul says "those He foreknew" in Romans 8:30, the context is obviously different, because he is speaking of a limited group. Even by saying "those He foreknew," he is implicitly, unmistakably saying, He did not foreknow everyone. So, 'foreknew' is to be understood as synonymous with 'fore-loved," as in loved in a much different way, as sovereign, choosing way. And this fits with the rest of Scripture, in particular with what John says in 1 John 4:19, that "we love because he first loved us."

Because not everyone will be glorified...

Absolutely correct.

, not every one God elected will be predestinated.

Absolutely incorrect. Being a member of God's elect means we are justified by God and thus predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ.

Not all who are predestinated, will be called. Not all that are called, will be justified. And not all those justified, will be glorified.

Also absolutely incorrect... in direct conflict to and refutation of Romans 8:29-30, that "...those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified." There are no exceptions.

God voted that the you have life. Satan voted against life. You cast the winning vote.

LOL! Absolutely not. We do not elect ourselves, nor does satan have any say whatsoever. God alone "votes." :) Goodness gracious.

Seems like those who argue against free will...

No one here is doing that.

...do not see Israel returning to God in the future, nor a Day of the Lord, where sin is removed for a thousand years.

The partial hardening that is now on Israel will be removed when. And, after the final Judgment, sin will be removed forever.

Okay, that's quite enough.

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.

 

[PinSeeker]

Ok, from a strictly human viewpoint, that doesn’t know the future, Peter could’ve done a number of things but once it was known what would take place the human perspective doesn’t matter.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. You seem to have some sort of... well, issue, or axe to grind, or something, but I can't really put my finger on it... maybe that God somehow "forces His will on humans." If that's the case, then what I would say is that regarding His salvation, our choosing Him, is made possible -- because we are set free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death, as Paul says in Romans 8:2 -- and is then inevitable, because then, having been blind but now seeing, having been deaf but now hearing, having been lame and mute but now leaping like a deer and shouting for joy (Isaiah 35), will do ~ of our own free will and accord ~ no other.

From a human perspective every person can be saved....

If you mean by that that everyone is eligible for salvation, then I agree, of course. It is in this sense that God desires all would come to saving knowledge of Him (1 Timothy 2:4).

...and our will is to tell others about the gospel so that they may be saved.

Well, okay... I may be complicating things with this, but this is our mandate, and our commissioning from Jesus to do this (Matthew 28:19-20). Our desire is to do this, for sure; we would desire that everyone come to knowledge of the Lord, too, right? We want everyone to be given what we've been given.

From Gods perspective only those written in the book of life, from the foundation of the world, can be saved.

I would say "will be," rather than "can be." There may seem to be no difference there, but I would say there is. Or, I might say "can be" is acceptable there, but only in a certain sense, that only God's elect can be saved, not because they are not eligible or invited, but because they are not chosen by God, as Paul says:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved." (Ephesians 1:3-6)​

As Jesus says, "Many are invited, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22.14) The parable of the Wedding Feast is very instructive...

If God were to give us the names of those in the book of life our perspective would change...

Right; if we knew who was elect and who was not, we would not waste time preaching to those not elect. But we don't. So, we go to all nations and all peoples.

, we would no longer have the perspective that maybe our neighbor could be saved if we knew his name wasn’t in the book.

Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Maybe these verses can help. Was it possible for Jesus to get the angels from God? Yes. Was it possible for Jesus to get the angels from God and still be Jesus (the word was with God and the word was God)? No.

Was it possible for Peter to prevent the denial? Yes. Was it possible for Peter to prevent the denial and Jesus to be God (trinity)? No.

Ultimately Jesus is God so it was impossible for Jesus to get the angels and it was impossible for Peter not to make the denial.

Hm. It seems to me you're overthinking this. But, fair enough.

Grace and peace to you, GB.

 

[PinSeeker]

You can't say that they just naturally won't acknowledge God and worship Him and are naturally unable to do so.

And here we go again with the able versus unable thing. You're missing the point, SI. The natural condition, the condition from birth, of the human heart, because of the consequences of Adam's sin, is to be wholly inclined against God. For unbelievers, the reason they have no excuse is that they, even having clearly seen all that can be known about God, still suppressing the truth ~ which itself is a decision ~ in unrighteousness.

God just randomly have mercy on some and randomly harden others? No!

To us, maybe so, but to Him, no; this is His purpose of election, as Paul says.

God hardened Pharaoh's heart because Pharoah had already hardened his own heart.

I disagree with this statement as a whole, not "in its entirety," but, specifically, that God hardened Pharoah's heart because Pharoah had already hardened his own heart. I do agree, though, that Pharoah hardened his own heart. Now, this may seem contradictory to you, but not so; if you say that, then you might as well say God contradicted Himself:

"...the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go..." (Exodus 4:21), and "...the LORD said to Moses, “...you shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you..." (Exodus 7:1-4). And before Moses and Aaron even approach Pharoah... "the LORD said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is hardened; he refuses to let the people go..."

And then, here is the "because" part: "...Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said."

Pharoah did make a conscious choice not to listen to Moses and Aaron, and in this way, Pharoah did indeed harden his heart. We agree on that. But it is also true that God hardened Pharoah's heart, just as He told Moses He would. Both are true, so therefore, they have to be resolved in some way, and there is no way to do it than this: Pharoah hardened his own heart, of his own free will and accord, but only because God had ordained it to be so. So your statement above is inverted to opposite what it should be; Pharoah hardened his own heart, of his own free will and accord, but only because God had ordained it to be so. Pharoah did not somehow "cause God to do what He did." God always does what He does for His own glory, even using the will and actions of men and women to do so. In this way, as Paul says in Romans 8:28, God works all things ~ all things, even sinful choices and actions of men ~ together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose, for those who love God. God's will does not hinge on or depend on man's will. If you do a good concordance word search of Scripture on anything related to choice, you will find that man's choices are always ~ always ~ in the context of God's choices. God of course does not sin, nor is He the author of sin, but He sometimes uses sin, yet sinlessly on His own part, for the benefit of His elect.

Beyond that, even just to your own statement, if Pharoah hardened his own heart, did God somehow come in behind Pharoah and harden Pharoah's heart... further...? I mean, if Pharoah's heart was already hardened, why would God have to harden it again? Now this is a rhetorical question... surely you see the superfluousness there... :)

Also, while it is certainly true that God has mercy on whoever He wants to have mercy on and hardens whoever He wants without anyone being able to tell Him what to do, it just so happens that God wants to have mercy on all people even though He is not obligated to desire that.

Ugh. That's a mouthful... :) You acknowledge here that "God hardens whoever He wants," and that's good, but how do you reconcile that with your statement directly above that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart because Pharoah had already hardened his own heart"? See above... :)

You should not interpret a verse like Romans 9:18 and draw conclusions from it without taking other scripture like Romans 11:30-32 into account. This passage indicates that God wants to have mercy on all people, which lines up with other scripture which teaches that God wants all people to repent (Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9) and all people to be saved (1 John 2:1-2, 1 Timothy 2:3-6).

Right, but you can't then discount Romans 9:14-18. You have to hold all of these things together, recognize the tension, and reconcile them in some way, I realize you don't mean to be, but you're basically holding that the latter passages you cited nullify the former. That just cannot be done.

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

Continued from above:

So, since scripture clearly teaches that God wants all people to repent and to have mercy on all people and for all people to be saved, why don't all people repent and why doesn't God have mercy on and save all people?

That's a very good question. Just on a human level, personally speaking, how can you or I be really desirous of something coming to be, but at the same time resolved not to make that something happen? Why would we make such a decision? Well, there could be several reasons, right? In God's case, there is a very, very good reason for His not acting on this desire... several actually, and they all ultimately have to do with Him and His glory.

God sovereignly chose to make all people responsible.

Hmmm, yes, we are all accountable to God, but some/many will not acknowledge that, right? So does this make them more powerful than God? Certainly not, as I'm sure you will agree. So again, reconciliation of these things is necessary...

This gives no excuse for anyone to not repent and have faith.

No one has any excuse for not acknowledging and worshiping God. No Calvinist would suggest otherwise.

Calvinism misrepresents the character of God.

Ah, well, I say Arminianism does that. It inadvertently makes people out to be sovereign over God ~ or at the very least, that God's sovereignty is not really sovereignty at all, and that His will is dependent upon ours, which is directly opposite of what we know about God's elect and one's membership in said elect or lack thereof, that "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

If everyone has this so-called "general call of the gospel", which I agree is the case, then it only follows that everyone can potentially respond favorably to it, but Calvinism denies this.

No, Calvinism certainly affirms this, and I have said so over and over and over. That you agree is fabulous.

Otherwise, what is the point of calling everyone?

Right; outwardly speaking, very generally and very publically, "Many are..." (everyone is) "...called/invited..." (and thus eligible) "...but few are chosen." This is exactly what Jesus says in Matthew 22;14.

Yes, this is a completely different call than the one which represents an invitation to accept God's offer of salvation by way of repenting and putting one's faith in Christ. This "call" is not an invitation that can be accepted or rejected, but rather is a type of call that relates directly to what God is doing which includes justifying and glorifying His people.

You understand then, the difference between the outward call of the Gospel and the inward call by God issued by His Spirit. But you seem to keep trying to backtrack out of it somehow, which is... puzzling. :)

...I would think you would say that the people who resist it were not chosen by God to accept it...

Ah, well, not chosen by God (before the foundation of the world) to be conformed to the image of Christ (Ephesians 1). As hard as it may be for us to accept, God made one for honorable use and another for dishonorable use. In both cases, His use. Why? Well, as Paul says, "God, desired (desires) to show His wrath and to make known His power, and has endured (endures) with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles."

...it would mean some are called/invited to salvation without even having any genuine opportunity of accepting the call/invitation, which makes no sense whatsoever.

If, as Paul has said, "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them," that "His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made," then how can they still have any excuse? They cannot. So no, they are most certainly invited, and it is our privilege to be commissioned by God to go out and extend that invitation to everyone.

And what is the result if they continue to reject it their entire lives even until their deaths? They are sent to hell, right? So, who is responsible for that? The unbelievers themselves are responsible because they had no excuse for rejecting the call of the gospel just like those who don't acknowledge and worship God have no excuse for that.

Right, and I would add that they had all the information they need to accept the outward call. Sure.

Calvinism says that they are not really responsible...

Absolutely not...

You make what you call the outward call of the gospel meaningless! You also don't seem willing to acknowledge that it's a call to salvation.

No, certainly I would acknowledge that, but the outward call is not salvific... not conferring salvation upon someone. Much in the same sense as our baptism by water by any method of people of any age is outward and not conferring of salvation.

In Matthew 22:1-13 Jesus used an invitation to a wedding as an analogy to the general call of all people to salvation.

RIght; cited above, and again, what does Jesus say in Matthew 22:14 (the very next verse; interesting that you didn't include it...). There, Jesus says, "many are called, but few are chosen."

I'll assume you are familiar with that passage;

That would be a very good assumption... :)

Now, if this general gospel call is not a call to salvation, as it seems you believe, then why is it that those who reject the invitation/call, end up being punished for rejecting it?

Hm. Interesting question. I guess I would ask a question in response. Why would they not?

So, why exactly are you telling me this as if I disagreed with you about this?

Because, SI, over and over again, you say ~ unwittingly or inadvertently as may be ~ otherwise, that we can thwart God's purpose of election and salvation itself, that we can resist the salvific call of God, that we can resist the Holy Spirit in this way. We cannot.

Continued below...

 

[PinSeeker]

Continued from above... :)

And why not? What reason can you give for God setting "His sovereign, distinguing love" on some, but not on the rest?

Ah, so you're asking, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" Right? That's the question Paul is attributing to his hearers, in Romans 9:19. And then further, (vv.20-21), "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" Other than that, I would end where Paul does in Romans 11:33-36, saying, with Him, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?' 'Or who has given a gift to Him that he might be repaid?'"

You are trying to tell me that He loves people that He sends to hell with no opportunity to be saved (according to your doctrine)? Really? You expect me to believe that? No way.

Okay, fair enough... But God loves all His creation. Yet still, He chooses to have mercy on whom He will and to harden whom He will... I would submit to you, Spiritual Israelite, that even His punishment is really an act of love. If a parent punishes his or her child, why does he or she do it? Because he or she does not love his or her child anymore? Well no...

That's complete nonsense.

Well, no, but okay.

That would be quite a ridiculous way to show His love for those non-elect people.

By giving them every opportunity to respond positively, and giving them over to their own selfish desires and passions (in this life), and ultimately giving them exactly according to their preference (in the next)?

I'm pretty sure that they could not be convinced that He loves them in any way, shape or form if He sends them to hell with no opportunity at all to go to heaven instead.

But they will regret (to put it mildly) having been given every opportunity to repent and believe, even having been endured with great patience, and even given great measures of grace through it all, but still chosen to remain in rebellion against God. This regret will be their anguish. We see that with the rich man in Jesus's parable at the end of Luke 16.

Right. They can resist the call to be born again/saved. They can resist God's offer of salvation.

The outward call of salvation. See, you seem to agree, and then you keep backtracking and, well, really, refuting yourself.

Just like those who Stephen was scolding for resisting the Holy Spirit. If they weren't resisting the Holy Spirit's call for them to repent and be saved, what exactly do you think they were resisting?

Spiritual Israelite, Who is the real Writer of Scripture? As I'm sure you will recall, "all Scripture is breathed out by God"... Paul says this in 2 Timothy 3:16. This implies that God the Father is the source or origin of what is recorded in Scripture, of course, but also that God, through the Holy Spirit, used human authors to write what He revealed in the Bible. They were not mere copyists or transcribers. The Holy Spirit superintended the writing of Scripture, so much so that He is the real Author. My point, then, is that the Holy Spirit really issues both the outward call of the Gospel and of Scripture (which is general to all) and the inward call of God in the conferring of salvation upon/within the person (which is issued specifically only to God's elect).

So with that in mind, read Acts 7:51 again. Stephen calls those to whom he is speaking "uncircumcised in heart and ears." Now, remember what Paul says in Romans 2:28-29 (which he wrote probably sometime within the time setting of all the events Luke records in Acts). Paul says, "no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." So Stephen is saying they are unconverted, and thus they always reject the Holy Spirit's call because of this uncircumcision in heart and ears." In other words, they always reject the outward, general call of salvation because they are unbelievers. And this fits perfectly with what Jesus tells the Jews to whom He is speaking in John 10. When they ask Him, "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly,” Jesus says, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep."

Scripture itself does not equate being dead in sins with being unable to make a choice of whether to humble oneself and repent of their sins or not.

And I have never said such. But it does say that being dead in sins means that people will not make this choice. Those people will not call upon the name of the Lord. The ones that will call upon the name of the Lord are the ones that the Lord calls. This is what Joel says in Joel 2:32... "And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls"... and what both John and Paul refer directly to in John 3 and Romans 10 respectively. Notice that little word 'for' in that Joel quote ~ where Joel is actually quoting God Himself. That 'for' denotes a clarification, so what comes before it is a result of what comes before it. The ones who are saved are saved because they are the ones who the Lord has called. And now, we can go back to Romans 8 and see the inevitability of all this once God makes this inward call: "...those whom He call(s) he also justifie(s), and those whom He justifie(s) He also glorifie(s)."

Calvinism has forced that concept on to scripture.

Not at all. See above.

Calvinism places a definition on what it means to be dead in sins that scripture itself never gives.

So dead is not really dead? :) That's pretty much what Arminians say...

Your doctrine should be based on scripture, not on assumptions.

Well I agree; back atcha.

Being dead in one's sins is not a reference to what someone is capable of.

Well, outwardly speaking, right, But when a person is dead in his sin, inwardly speaking, he is incapable of doing... something... anything... spiritual... of the Holy Spirit. :) Dead really is dead. :) Which refutes Jacobus Arminius's first "point," that although human nature was seriously affected by the Fall, man has not been left in a state of death in sin and thus spiritual helplessness. Arminius postulated that the lost sinner ~ the person dead in sin ~ needs only the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, which is totally antithetical to what Jesus says about being born again of the Spirit. And Arminius wrongly postulated that faith is man's act and precedes the new birth, that faith is the sinner's gift to God, man's contribution to his own salvation.

You should not try to compare being dead in sins to someone being physically dead and unable to do anything.

I have never said such a thing; no Calvinist would. See above. He is, however, unable to please God, because he is spiritually dead.

That's not what being dead in sins means. Being dead in sins is simply a reference to one's spiritual status.

Right. That's what I just said... So how can one make a spiritual decision when dead in "spiritual status"? What is "spiritual status" to you, SI?

Sigh. Continued below... :)

 

[PinSeeker]

We need to try to boil this down, or break it up somehow into more manageable pieces... :) But, nevertheless, continued from above:

Without having the blood of Christ covering their sins, they are instead dead in their sins. It just refers to their status of not being made spiritually alive in Christ. It has nothing to do with one's capability or their consciousness or anything like that.

Right, and they are in need of being born of the Spirit, and it does have everything to do with being able to make a spiritual decision, a decision of the Holy Spirit, informed by Him. As Paul says to the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthains 2:14, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

Remember, Jesus came not to call the righteous, but to call sinners to repentance (Matthew 9:13). Sinners who are dead in their sins. So, clearly, Jesus did not equate being dead in sins with being unable to respond to...

The general call of Scripture to repentance and belief. Right. Yeah, I, um, remember... :)

So, don't place a definition on what it means to be dead in sins that scripture itself does not.

LOL! Well, thanks for the advice, but I don't, and would say the same to you... :)

I'm talking about repentance in the sense of a change of mind from not being sorry for one's sins to being sorry for them, acknowledging them and not wanting to sin anymore. That is something that goes hand in hand with placing one's faith/trust in Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. You're talking about the ongoing process of sanctification.

Well, right, but would you not say that this sanctification is a growing in our knowledge of the Lord, and even a growing of our faith by the Lord? Even the apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith."

I'd rather discuss your claim that saving faith is the gift of God....

Fair enough.

Once again, like you do with Romans 9:18 and other verses, you are drawing a conclusion from a verse that doesn't line up with other scripture.

Oh, it does... Perception is not always reality, SI. :)

Nowhere does scripture teach that saving faith is the gift of God as if no one can have saving faith unless God gives it to them.

It does... Is faith a gift of the Holy Spirit ~ what we call a Spiritual Gift ~ or not? You will recall what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:

"Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, Who apportions to each one individually as He wills" (1 Corinthians 12:4-11)​

Now, it's not that some Christians have the Spiritual gift of faith and some do not, but rather that faith in some is more robust, stronger, than that of others. But all these Spiritual gifts are for the common good, so for the ones whose faith is stronger, God gives them to us so that they can help us in our faith. This is true of all the gifts; we all use them for the good of others, even the building up in the Lord. The same is true of what he says to the Romans:

"For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness" (Romans 12:3-8).​

...what Paul was saying in Ephesians 2:8 is...

...very much equivalent, regarding faith, to what he said in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 above...

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace you have been saved ~ and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (vv.4-8)​

You cannot separate faith back out of verse 8, especially in light of Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 above. Faith is the gift of God, worked in us ~ and strengthened in us ~ by the Holy Spirit.

Continued below... :)

 

[PinSeeker]

Okay, continued from above...

Please think about the ramifications of your Calvinist beliefs.

Okay, well, please think of the ramifications of your Arminian beliefs. :) Two things:

a) I actually was Arminian in my understanding of these things at one time ~ and for a good length of time ~and have since... well, "repented"... :)

And...

b) Neither of us, if we are wrong about this, is disqualified as a Christian. :) Or a lesser Christian than the other, actually.

You believe that the people who do not believe in Christ (and never do) cannot (and never could) believe in Christ.

No, I don't, Spiritual Israelite. I absolutely do not believe that. Romans 1 again... all that can be known about God has been clearly seen by all... I would ask that you quit attributing things to me (and other Calvinists) that are not true at all.

And, yet, you also believe that these same people are condemned and will experience Christ's vengeance and will "be punished with everlasting destruction fom the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power". For what reason would these people condemned and be punished if they have no choice and have no ability to repent and believe?

Sigh.

<insert stiff Scottish (or Irish...? I like both...) accent here> Shaking me head, I am... :)

See above. :)

That makes no sense.

Well I agree. Now if we can correct what you've said that makes no sense... :)

Calvinism removes any meaningful responsibility from man...

Nooooooo. Antinomians do that, but antinomianism is a heresy... :)

You can keep saying faith is the gift of God...

And I will; see above.

...you apparently have a grand total of one verse...

Far more than that... :) Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians (2 above, and also 6... faith is the shield in/of the armor of God), Galatians (5:22-23; "...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control..."), Colossians (2:12; "...having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, Who raised Him from the dead...") Shall I go on? :) Two more, both in Hebrews: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1... this assurance is given by God. and it is the Holy Spirit Who convicts), and "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith" (Hebrews 12:1-2). It's throughout the New Testament, Spiritual Israelite.

You apparently missed my point about Ephesians 1:12-13. It indicates that we are not sealed with the Holy Spirit until after we have first believed and trusted in Christ..

No I didn't; see above. Nope. The operative word there in verse 13 is 'when.' There is no 'because.' this is all a work of the Spirit. We come to belief upon receiving these gifts of the Spirit, these spiritual gifts (see above), which are irrevocable (Romans 11).

You have the Holy Spirit dwelling in a person, making them born again, before the person has faith.

Right, because that's exactly how it is. See above.

Paul taught that faith comes first.

Nope. It's all part of the same working of the Spirit.

His will and His purpose was to make a way for all people to be saved and He did that by sending His Son to die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

True, but that's a bit of a tangent to what we're talking about here. We're talking specifically about His purpose of election, which came about as it did regarding Jacob and Esau, as Paul says, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad ~ in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls..."

What was the basis of God's choosing?

His purpose of election. Everything God does is for His own glory.

Continued below...

 

[PinSeeker]

Okay, the home stretch, finally... :) Okay yeah, this is important. I mean, it all is, but...

God's election is according to His foreknowledge (Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2, Romans 11:2). You don't seem to be taking that into account.

Ah, there it is. I knew this was coming long ago, as you may remember; I tried to draw it out of you then. :) So, yeah, God's 'foreknowledge..." Let's focus on Romans 8:29. When Paul says "those He foreknew," here, he's talking, not about everybody, but a limited group that God "foreknew." From this we automatically know that Paul cannot be talking about a mere cognitive knowledge, as in just knowing something before it happens, because in that sense, God "foreknows" everybody without exception. In various passages in the Bible, "to know" is used in both senses, though not both at the same time; this "knowing" we should understand in the same sense as loving. and not just that but in a particular way reserved for some but not given to others. This is true both in the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New:

• Genesis 4:1 ~ "Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived..." Marital knowing is even synonymous with sexual intimacy; this knowing is deeply personal and is based on mutual knowledge, which is to say mutual loving action.
• Psalm 1:6 ~ "the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish"; 2 Timothy 2:19 ~ "God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His..."; In both passages here, this is not simply cognitive knowledge but loving care that is cited as sure and that keeps from the way of the wicked (Psalm 1) and apostasy (2 Timothy 2:18)
• Amos 3:2 ~ "you only have I known" cannot mean mere cognitive knowledge because God just cited His knowledge about all the nations and their sins. Many translations correctly use 'chosen' here, for it refers to electing love in which God set Israel apart from all the nations of the earth, not according to anything in Israel, but because of His loving choice, as in Deuteronomy 7:7-8 ~ "It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt."
• Jeremiah 1:5 ~ Jeremiah adds "before" with knowing ~ "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as a prophet..." This means much more than having factual knowledge about Jeremiah; it involves God’s making Jeremiah one of His elect and His intention to graciously and lovingly make Jeremiah a prophet; Jeremiah is unworthy and apparently fearful, but God will lovingly give him the words to speak and God will lovingly deliver him, vs. 7-8).

So, 'foreknew' of Romans 8:29 is virtually synonymous as 'foreloved' and even 'fore-chose,' which fits perfectly with what this same Paul says in Ephesians 1, that God "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him... In love He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will..."

Does scripture say that Pharaoh was predestined to be an evil dictator and be against God?

LOL! As you will agree, God's predestination is of His elect, for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will (Ephesians 1 again). But SI, by purposing this for some, by predestining some, that necessarily means that by elimination, He purposely did not predestine others. The simple fact is, He chose some instead of others ~ as with Jacob and Esau. This is His purpose ~ His purpose, SI, not ours ~ of election. He has mercy on some/many, but He hardens others, all according to His will. That He hardens some does not mean in any way that He predestines them to be evil or against Him. Such a thought is ridiculous. However...

As I have said, that part ~ the evil thing :) ~ is already the natural human condition of all, as we can see throughout Scripture, from Genesis on up, starting with Genesis 3 and 4, really, but:

• In Genesis 6:5, Moses writes, "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." This is the result of Adam's Fall.
• We see it again in Jeremiah 17:9, where we read "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"
• And again from David, as I have said, in Psalm 51:5, when he says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."
• And again in Isaiah 53, where the prophet writes, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned ~ every one ~ to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."
• And again in Romans 1 and 2, where Paul says of unbelievers, "They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1:29-32) and of believers, "in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things" (Romans 2:1)
• And again in Romans 3:23, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
• And ~ you know, there are more, but I'll stop with this one from Paul to believers in Ephesians 2:1-3 ~ "...you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience ~ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind..."

This just cannot be avoided; this "total depravity of man," as John Calvin called it, is literally all through Scripture.

No, it does not. That was his choice. And, once someone makes that choice and repeatedly refuses to repent as Pharaoh did then God can use that person as He sees fit for His purposes if He wants to.

Yes it does... Pharoah's choice, I agree. But again, God doesn't decide what He's going to do based on our decisions; His will does not hinge on that of man. But yes, God uses all things both in bringing glory to Himself and working all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

He wants to have mercy on all people (Romans 11:30-32).

Right, but neither one of us are universalists, and what I am getting at in saying this is that, in response to your statement here, that even though, yes, He wants to have mercy on all people, still, He doesn't. We agree, I think, that not all are His elect, and not all will be saved, so, did He somehow forget about those people? Does Jesus in Matthew 25 say to those on His left, "You know, darn it, I forgot all about you guys. Oh well, sorry..."...? Or anything like that? Well, no. He tells them He never knew them, but again, Jesus, as God, knows everything and everybody, so that is to be understood in the same sense as 'foreknew' in Romans 8:29 above.

Why is it that you don't take all of scripture into account?

Ohhhhh... I do... See above.

Don't make this claim without backing it up. I completely disagree with this. Give evidence to back this up or don't say it.

What, that things you have said are your opinions? So you "completely disagree" that your opinion is your opinion? Hm. That seems a bit of an odd thing to say...

Okay, back to Stephen and Acts 7...

So, what exactly do you think the ones who Stephen was rebuking were resisting that they could have chosen not to resist instead?

Answered at least twice above... and again below...

It's clear to me that they were resisting the call to salvation with an expected response of repentance and faith.

Ah, well, I agree; it's clear to me that they, as unbelievers ~ "uncircumcised in heart and ears" ~ were ignoring the general, outward call of God by His Spirit and, well, dwelling in sin, or, as Paul says in Romans 1, knew God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet still not only did these evil things themselves but gave approval to others who practice them.

Grace and peace to you, SI.