Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. “You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall speak to Pharaoh that he let the sons of Israel go out of his land. “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. “When Pharaoh does not listen to you, then I will lay My hand on Egypt and bring out My hosts, My people the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments. “The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.”

I have seen this "judgment of hardening" described as what happens AFTER people have already decided.  In fact, in this case, it is decreed before Moses even appears to Pharaoh the first time, BEFORE Pharaoh had a choice or the opportunity to choose.  This culminates in the deaths of thousands of "innocent babies" of Egypt who had not necessarily done anything worse than the babies of the children of Israel.  The reason God will do this is also stated, to multiply His wonders that He may demonstrate His glory and prove to the Egyptians that He is Lord.  It seems that this is a greater good in the eyes of God and His decrees are obeyed by the freewill of Pharaoh choosing not to listen.

Have you discussed this here (hardening decreed before Pharoah even approached?), because I haven't seen this argument raised before?

Post Edited (Reader) : 4/30/2005 4:22:43 AM (GMT-5)

Great answer, Bryan.

I appreciated your comments regarding the earlier passage about Pharaoh.  There is an even earlier one that is fixed in time and it would appear to be bad for whatever Pharaoh happened to be on the throne when that time arrived, the Pharaoh of that fourth generation, regardless of his choices.

God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. “But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions. “As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. “Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.”

Bryan,

I was posting on the old site as Spen Lake and you can dig up my name from the archives someplace.  I have sympathy with the OV, especially in as much as it stands against hyper-Calvinism.  I have heard that one needs to be an intellectual to understand the concepts of the bondage of the will (I prefer Luther to Calvin).  It is my opinion that this same criticism is at least as applicable to the OV.  It is easy to create an OV caricature to knock over.  The reality is much more subtle and complicated.  The OV position seems to be much more of a diverse continuum than a single postion, with some being more extreme than others in the amount of "freedom" God has carved out of His sovereignty.  After way too many posts it is my belief that the OV really doesn't solve the problems that it seeks to resolve, at least not in a clean and tidy way that it is often presented.  That is why I liked your response, it acknowleded this.  To make God seem more "fair," the OV places the problem of evil in a void that an omnipotent God created and in which His will isn't done.  It hides the problems behind a curtain one step removed.  This simply postpones the "fairness" issue because with that position, it seems unfair that God would so value the possibility of freewill decision of the Nazis to love Him that God would allow them the opportunity to abuse the weak and hamless to death.  Pretty tough if you are one of the weak and harmless that God sacrifices to receive the freewill love of the Nazis.  It seems lacking in "fair" or worse, in intelligence.  We like to believe that God is the defender of the helpless, not the one who sells them out as collateral damage so he can enjoy the love of the few.

I resolve this in "mystery" and an eschatological perspective.  I believe that God is sovereign and I believe that we choose what we want and are responsible for it - like Pharaoh.  There is a rational inconsistency in these two beliefs that I leave in transcendence.  Ultimately, God will be glorified and will wipe away every tear from those who believe the gift of His gospel freely offered to all.

Post Edited (Reader) : 4/30/2005 3:55:46 PM (GMT-5)

1. Determine everything before hand.
2. Leave creation some openness and some "creative" ability

It seems to me that there is either some openness or there is not.  If #1 is how things were done, then there is no personal relationship with creation any more than there is a personal relationship between me and a basketball I'm dribbling.  God may allow us the illusion of personhood, but that's not the same thing.  It is my understanding that the trinitarian God is a God of personal relationship, and that love of personal relationship is basis for creation.

You guys have already pointed out that #2 still leaves God in the position of allowing the weak to be sacrificed for the sake of real personal relationships.  I guess this is where mystery comes in for me.  God himself dying and rising again.  People giving water to the thirsty unwittingly serving Christ.  I may have come to the open view to resolve theodicy issues, but that's not where I am now.  I think it's right to say that open theism only postpones the issue of fairness.  But it does answer the problems of unfairness with determinism.  The remaining problems that the open view leaves are only resolved by the hope that the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead has some more trcks up his sleeve.  I'm not going as far as universalism, but something along the lines of the parable of the sheeps and the goats.  Without minimizing the real weight of evil and suffering, what is waiting around the bend may somehow make up for it.  It's not perfectly clean, but maybe that's not what is meant by holy.