Why do some people believe and some do not?

[posthuman]

good luck 🍀👍

worth a shot lol

happy new year, beloved friend

 

[cv5]

@HeIsHere

you may particularly like chapter 31, where he goes on to argue from scripture ((note: not from Greek philosophy)) that free will and God's sovereign intervention in our lives necessarily coexist - -

Lest, however, it should be thought that men themselves in this matter do nothing by free will, it is said in the Psalm, Harden not your hearts; and in Ezekiel himself, Cast away from you all your transgressions, which you have impiously committed against me; and make you a new heart and a new spirit; and keep all my commandments. For why will you die, O house of Israel, says the Lord? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies, says the Lord God: and turn ye, and live. Ezekiel 18:31-32 We should remember that it is He who says, Turn ye and live, to whom it is said in prayer, Turn us again, O God. We should remember that He says, Cast away from you all your transgressions, when it is even He who justifies the ungodly. We should remember that He says, Make you a new heart and a new spirit, who also promises, I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you. Ezekiel 36:26 How is it, then, that He who says, Make you, also says, I will give you? Why does He command, if He is to give? Why does He give if man is to make, except it be that He gives what He commands when He helps him to obey whom He commands? There is, however, always within us a free will — but it is not always good; for it is either free from righteousness when it serves sin — and then it is evil — or else it is free from sin when it serves righteousness — and then it is good. But the grace of God is always good; and by it it comes to pass that a man is of a good will, though he was before of an evil one. By it also it comes to pass that the very good will, which has now begun to be, is enlarged, and made so great that it is able to fulfil the divine commandments which it shall wish, when it shall once firmly and perfectly wish. This is the purport of what the Scripture says: If you will, you shall keep the commandments; Sirach 15:15 so that the man who wills but is not able knows that he does not yet fully will, and prays that he may have so great a will that it may suffice for keeping the commandments. And thus, indeed, he receives assistance to perform what he is commanded. Then is the will of use when we have ability; just as ability is also then of use when we have the will. For what does it profit us if we will what we are unable to do, or else do not will what we are able to do?​

​

All of that sounds A-OK to me.
Squares perfectly with Scripture.

 

[cv5]

new years resolution:

don't believe what the willfully ignorant say about things they refuse to learn anything about.

I'm just poking some New Years fun at some of these posters.

Levity was the objective.

That and frowning upon hilariously excessive windbaggery.

 

[cv5]

chapter 29 of the letter you by your free agency prejudge while refusing to read:

Now if faith is simply of free will, and is not given by God, why do we pray for those who will not believe, that they may believe? This it would be absolutely useless to do, unless we believe, with perfect propriety, that Almighty God is able to turn to belief wills that are perverse and opposed to faith. Man's free will is addressed when it is said, Today, if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts. But if God were not able to remove from the human heart even its obstinacy and hardness, He would not say, through the prophet, I will take from them their heart of stone, and will give them a heart of flesh. Ezekiel 11:19 That all this was foretold in reference to the New Testament is shown clearly enough by the apostle when he says, You are our epistle, . . . written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart. 2 Corinthians 3:2-3 We must not, of course, suppose that such a phrase as this is used as if those might live in a fleshly way who ought to live spiritually; but inasmuch as a stone has no feeling, with which man's hard heart is compared, what was there left Him to compare man's intelligent heart with but the flesh, which possesses feeling? For this is what is said by the prophet Ezekiel: I will give them another heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh; that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, says the Lord. Ezekiel 11:19-20 Now can we possibly, without extreme absurdity, maintain that there previously existed in any man the good merit of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his stony heart, when all the while this very heart of stone signifies nothing else than a will of the hardest kind and such as is absolutely inflexible against God? For where a good will precedes, there is, of course, no longer a heart of stone.​

​

wow, all from scripture, not denying free will, not suggesting God authors evil, but 100% praising God's sovereign action in the heart of the free-agency human with zero hint of pagan philosophy?


huh.
not what people who talk about him without ever even reading him would lead you to believe he would say.

weird.

I see some issues creeping in here.
Cannot endorse this batch.

 

[cv5]

@GWH @posthuman @Mem re: YHWH hardening Pharoah's heart:


NKJ Exod. 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

3 "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt.

NKJ Exod. 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

NKJ Exod. 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go.

NKJ Exod. 9:12 But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses.

NKJ Exod. 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants.

NKJ Exod. 10:1 Now the LORD said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants, that I may show these signs of Mine before him,

NKJ Exod. 10:20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go.

So, how does this hardening work?


Then, when Paul writes his commentary about this, what does he mean by this statement:

NKJ Rom 9:18-22 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared (this is a passive verb, so someone or something had prepared them) for destruction,

[1Sa 6:6 KJV] 6 Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?

 

[sawdust]

There's alot here.
First, a fallen nature is different from the original nature man was created with. Since you brought up animals, when God placed the fear of man into animals, did this change the nature of animals? Of course it did. In like manner man was changed as a result of sin. One has only to compare man before sin and after sin to see this difference. Adam was able understand God, but now, according to Romans 3, there are none who understand. Adam spent time with God every day, but now none seek after Him. Adam was made good, but now none do good. Even Jesus said only God is good. Regardless of what you call it, man is greatly different than what he was created. And we all inherited this vastly different nature. We aren't trapped. We are changed. The image of God has indeed been marred and corrupted in man. This is why man was removed from the garden so Adam and Eve did not partake of the Tree of Life and all humanity life forever in a corrupted estate.
Like many here, you assume what others believe. I have never said man is born evil, but broken and corrupted.
On what basis can't evil be redeemed? Did something become impossible for God?

Our understanding of what constitutes nature is not the same so there is no point continuing hashing that out. As far as I am concerned, man has a human nature and that has never changed. Adam was not made good, he was declared good. How is man "greatly" different? Jesus Christ was like us in all ways except without sin.

I did not assume, I made a judgment call based on the many posts of yours I have read. You have never said in any of those posts that he is not born evil either. And what's more, I did not categorically state you think man is born evil, I said it seemed to me. You say he is not born evil but broken and corrupt. So where is this brokenness and corruption? In his soul or his flesh?

On the basis, the very thing that evil needs to be redeemed, truth, is the very thing it rejects which is what makes it evil. We both know there are things God cannot do, like lie. God does not forsake reality, His word is the reality.

 

[Poinsetta]

worth a shot lol

happy new year, beloved friend

 

[Magenta]

2025 Happy New Year!

 

[GWH]

You forgot the most critical passage of all:

Exodus 3:19
"And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand"

That's the set up.
No Twilight Zone episodes required.

What IS required are "episodes" harmonizing God's sovereignty or omnipotence with His righteousness or omnilove.

For example, here are two ways of jibing Scripture re the king of Egypt:

1. God allowed him not to let Moses go, and foreknew that would be what the king did, but the EX writer ascribed causality to God.

2. God hardened the king's heart and caused him not to let Israel go, because that was needed in order to work His POS, but He allowed the king to repent--or not--which the EX writer did not realize.

 

[studier]

We are given choices from which to (freely) choose, and directed toward the choice we should make, i.e. "I put before you, life and death, choose life." There's no option c,

I agree with you. I'm quoting just the above to keep it simple, but I'm not negating the omni's you also stated, which are also vital to the instruction.

There's more to this hardening than is usually discussed. That's why I quoted the verses I did. It was not just God hardening but also Pharaoh hardening himself. And in Paul's commentary he essentially tells us that God puts up with things for awhile, until He doesn't and then He as the Potter does what He wills and who are we to speak against Him [in His omni's and perfect essence]. Can we really judge Him? He always comes out righteous.

As @cv5 pointed out, there's even more to the actual story. Additionally to the verse cv5 quoted, I'd note that the words "oppressed" and "afflicted" are used in Ex3 so it's not as if Israel was being treated righteously. Also, when God has Moses go to Pharaoh, He tells him what to say to Pharaoh and that notification to Pharaoh includes "YHWH God" and "YWHW our God" in one brief notification. The narrative is setting up that Pharaoh is refusing YHWH God.

As @GWH looks to be following up with and as you've stated and I've agreed with, IMO human choice is normally in the picture. And I'm calling it 'choice' so as not to get into the 'free will' debacle.

God knows all the facts and functions accordingly as He wills.

 

[GWH]

This is an excellent point in that people often simply dismiss the simple truth because they can't reconcile this with their understanding of what the love of God entails. Rather than adjusting their understanding of verses like John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, and 1 Timothy 2:4, they continue to give them meaning inconsistent with the entirety of scripture. And the reason is as you state: it's not easy to accept what they perceive to be a moral inconsistency.

Ironically, I agree--but I think it is better to "adjust understanding" or interpret problematic Scriptures in a way that affirms BOTH God's omnipotence AND omnilove rather than cut off the latter, which results in implicit moral blasphemy against the HS.

 

[GWH]

what should we make of this?

Mark 4:11-12​

And He said to them, ​

"To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that 'seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.'"​

​

should we..

1. try to figure out how to make it not say what it explicitly says?
2. try to understand how that this is love?

Or, 3. try to harmonize what "it explicitly says" that God is love with problematic passages that seem contradictory.

(I vote for #3 :^)

 

[GWH]

Since I quoted you, I did fix "factual" and I did bolden one statement to say that I thought your answer to the OP was a good one, so I responded to it earlier.

Hopefully you'll agree that the John10 sheep passage is a favorite of the Calvinistic tradition, which you apparently don't see yourself holding to? So is Rom3:11.

Here was your original explicit answer to the OP:



I think we dealt with the "My sheep" matter from the perspective of John6. The way I understand it, the sheep are His because our Father gave them to Him.

I think @GWH providing this: [Jhn 17:9 KJV] "I pray for them. I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." shows further that those who are His are His because our Father gave them to Him because they are our Father's. Additionally, as is typical for John, he seems to be blurring the lines between God the Father and God the Son (You gave them to Me because they are Yours - if they belong to the Father then they belong to the Son)

Going back to John6 where we left off, the only thing I see there in regard to this topic is that God is doing the work of drawing unbelievers to His Son - and to Himself - by teaching them. And those that hear and learn from Him come to Jesus when our Father gives them to Him.

Not to blur this further, but it seems to me that our Father draws men to His Son and gives them to His Son, and then Jesus says no one can come to the Father if not through Him. Hopefully we begin to see that there are many things to think about here.

It seems you & @GWH agree that God desires all men to be saved per 1Tim2. I've provided some information re: Rom3:11 and don't think Paul is saying no men ever seek God - which goes against many Scriptures - but is rather making a case that all men are (were in the case of believers) under sin. I can say something else re: 1Tim2 which I think ties to the concept of hearing and learning from the Father if it's of interest

So my question to you and @GWH and anyone else and with the intent not to devolve into a battle over election, but rather to remain with the OP and your John10 explicit answer to it, is 'why do some men become His sheep (believe per the OP) and why do some men not?'

I opened my answer to the OP with an opinion re: men's disobedience and I and others I think have pointed to what seem to be Biblical reasons for their disobedience. To be clear, the specific reasons I'm referring to are mainly volitional.

Any interest?

Re "So my question to you and @GWH and anyone else and with the intent not to devolve into a battle over election, but rather to remain with the OP and your John10 explicit answer to it, is 'why do some men become His sheep (believe per the OP) and why do some men not?'"

The reason given by J&P is "because their hearts have become calloused" per MT 13:14-15 & ACTS 28:26-27. But why their hearts become calloused remains a mystery of volition.

 

[studier]

Now if faith is simply of free will, and is not given by God

And thus men, as did Augustine, still debate the concept of whether fallen men retain the capacity to believe what God teaches or whether God must first remove their stone hearts. There remains debate re: faith is a gift and what this means.

 

[studier]

i've had my fill of the same well-rehearsed but woefully un-examined arguments thrown at each other uselessly, threads.

IOW, let's examine the Scripture together? And how about we try to clear the decks and set aside interpretive traditions and see what we come up with rather than turn everything into tradition vs. tradition battle that you seem to speak of? If so, I'm your friend.

 

[GWH]

And thus men, as did Augustine, still debate the concept of whether fallen men retain the capacity to believe what God teaches or whether God must first remove their stone hearts. There remains debate re: faith is a gift and what this means.

The more important debate is whether God is omnilove or hateful toward half of humanity.

 

[studier]

Re "So my question to you and @GWH and anyone else and with the intent not to devolve into a battle over election, but rather to remain with the OP and your John10 explicit answer to it, is 'why do some men become His sheep (believe per the OP) and why do some men not?'"

The reason given by J&P is "because their hearts have become calloused" per MT 13:14-15 & ACTS 28:26-27. But why their hearts become calloused remains a mystery of volition.

It looks like you may be referring to the NIV which uses "calloused." I'll use with the NKJ which is closer to the actual meanings of the words used.

NKJ Matthew 13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'

• This is referencing the LXX Isaiah6:10.
• Their hearts became dull (Greek). The Hebrew means insensitive, unreceptive.
• Their ears are hard of hearing: Greek weighty, with difficulty. Hebrew: slowness, heaviness, dullness, hardness
  • The Hebrew is the same word used in Ex re: Pharoah's heart. I didn't go back and check the Greek.
• Their eyes they have closed: Greek to close. Hebrew to smear over, blind.
  • Note the active sense here: they closed their eyes.
• There's an interesting twist in Isaiah because the Hebrew when read in isolation says that God is essentially doing this, but the LXX does not translate it this way and the NT references quote the LXX. So, I'm going to add this note from the NET Bible that provides some observation on why the LXX difference (My highlight of the first sentences):
  • NET Notes (Isa 6:10)
    
    14 sn Do we take this commission at face value? Does the Lord really want to prevent his people from understanding, repenting, and being healed? Verse 9, which ostensibly records the content of Isaiah's message, is clearly ironic. As far as we know, Isaiah did not literally proclaim these exact words. The Hebrew imperatival forms are employed rhetorically and anticipate the response Isaiah will receive. When all is said and done, Isaiah might as well preface and conclude every message with these ironic words, which, though imperatival in form, might be paraphrased as follows: "You continually hear, but don't understand; you continually see, but don't perceive." Isaiah might as well command them to be spiritually insensitive, because, as the preceding and following chapters make clear, the people are bent on that anyway. (This ironic command is comparable to saying to a particularly recalcitrant individual, "Go ahead, be stubborn!") Verse 10b is also clearly sarcastic. On the surface it seems to indicate Isaiah's hardening ministry will prevent genuine repentance. But, as the surrounding chapters clearly reveal, the people were hardly ready or willing to repent. Therefore, Isaiah's preaching was not needed to prevent repentance! Verse 10b reflects the people's attitude and might be paraphrased accordingly: "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their mind, repent, and be restored, and they certainly wouldn't want that, would they?" Of course, this sarcastic statement may also reveal that the Lord himself is now bent on judgment, not reconciliation. Just as Pharaoh's rejection of Yahweh's ultimatum ignited judgment and foreclosed, at least temporarily, any opportunity for repentance, so the Lord may have come to the point where he has decreed to bring judgment before opening the door for repentance once more. The sarcastic statement in verse 10b would be an emphatic way of making this clear. (Perhaps we could expand our paraphrase: "Otherwise they might…repent, and be restored, and they certainly wouldn't want that, would they? Besides, it's too late for that!") Within this sarcastic framework, verse 10a must also be seen as ironic. As in verse 9 the imperatival forms should be taken as rhetorical and as anticipating the people's response. One might paraphrase: "Your preaching will desensitize the minds of these people, make their hearing dull, and blind their eyes." From the outset the Lord might as well command Isaiah to harden the people, because his preaching will end up having that effect. Despite the use of irony, we should still view this as a genuine, albeit indirect, act of divine hardening. After all, God did not have to send Isaiah. By sending him, he drives the sinful people further from him, for Isaiah's preaching, which focuses on the Lord's covenantal demands and impending judgment upon covenantal rebellion, forces the people to confront their sin and then continues to desensitize them as they respond negatively to the message. As in the case of Pharaoh, Yahweh's hardening is not arbitrarily imposed on a righteous or even morally neutral object. Rather his hardening is an element of his righteous judgment on recalcitrant sinners. Ironically, Israel's rejection of prophetic preaching in turn expedites disciplinary punishment, and brings the battered people to a point where they might be ready for reconciliation. The prophesied judgment (cf. 6:11–13) was fulfilled by 701 B.C. when the Assyrians devastated the land (a situation presupposed by Isa 1:2–20; see especially vv. 4–9). At that time the divine hardening had run its course and Isaiah is able to issue an ultimatum (1:19–20), one which Hezekiah apparently took to heart, resulting in the sparing of Jerusalem (see Isa 36–39 and cf. Jer 26:18–19 with Mic 3:12).This interpretation, which holds in balance both Israel's moral responsibility and the Lord's sovereign work among his people, is consistent with other pertinent texts both within and outside the Book of Isaiah. Isa 3:9 declares that the people of Judah "have brought disaster upon themselves," but Isa 29:9–10 indicates that the Lord was involved to some degree in desensitizing the people. Zech 7:11–12 looks back to the pre-exilic era (cf. v. 7) and observes that the earlier generations stubbornly hardened their hearts, but Ps 81:11–12, recalling this same period, states that the Lord "gave them over to their stubborn hearts."

You @GWH seem to speak of human cooperation periodically. You and some of us - including me - seem to note the importance of human choice in matters pertaining to God.

I don't really think at root this is too deep a mystery. I think human choice is and remains part of the equation since the Garden. And i think this answers the question this thread asks. I do leave opening for someone to convince me I'm wrong. But only by Scripture and not by Scripture by traditions.

 

[studier]

The more important debate is whether God is omnilove or hateful toward half of humanity.

I think we'd have to have you explain "omnilove" because "omni" is essentially defined as "all or universally." But we have verses like this to consider:

NKJ Hebrews 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."

Since lawless is sin (1J3:4), and unrighteousness is sin (1J5:17) and since I see this simply boiling down to disobedience, and since I see disobedience in essence highly overlapped with unbelief so as to be used in Scripture in parallel to unbelief, I come away with God essentially hating lawlessness, unrighteousness, sin, disobedience, unbelief. There are probably more things to consider as my research on obedience in the Text seems to show it is connected to many, many Biblical words and phrases.

So, can you narrow down, explain, refine your word "omnilove" for me?

 

[GWH]

It looks like you may be referring to the NIV which uses "calloused." I'll use with the NKJ which is closer to the actual meanings of the words used.

NKJ Matthew 13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'

• This is referencing the LXX Isaiah6:10.
• Their hearts became dull (Greek). The Hebrew means insensitive, unreceptive.
• Their ears are hard of hearing: Greek weighty, with difficulty. Hebrew: slowness, heaviness, dullness, hardness
  • The Hebrew is the same word used in Ex re: Pharoah's heart. I didn't go back and check the Greek.
• Their eyes they have closed: Greek to close. Hebrew to smear over, blind.
  • Note the active sense here: they closed their eyes.
• There's an interesting twist in Isaiah because the Hebrew when read in isolation says that God is essentially doing this, but the LXX does not translate it this way and the NT references quote the LXX. So, I'm going to add this note from the NET Bible that provides some observation on why the LXX difference (My highlight of the first sentences):
  • NET Notes (Isa 6:10)
    
    14 sn Do we take this commission at face value? Does the Lord really want to prevent his people from understanding, repenting, and being healed? Verse 9, which ostensibly records the content of Isaiah's message, is clearly ironic. As far as we know, Isaiah did not literally proclaim these exact words. The Hebrew imperatival forms are employed rhetorically and anticipate the response Isaiah will receive. When all is said and done, Isaiah might as well preface and conclude every message with these ironic words, which, though imperatival in form, might be paraphrased as follows: "You continually hear, but don't understand; you continually see, but don't perceive." Isaiah might as well command them to be spiritually insensitive, because, as the preceding and following chapters make clear, the people are bent on that anyway. (This ironic command is comparable to saying to a particularly recalcitrant individual, "Go ahead, be stubborn!") Verse 10b is also clearly sarcastic. On the surface it seems to indicate Isaiah's hardening ministry will prevent genuine repentance. But, as the surrounding chapters clearly reveal, the people were hardly ready or willing to repent. Therefore, Isaiah's preaching was not needed to prevent repentance! Verse 10b reflects the people's attitude and might be paraphrased accordingly: "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their mind, repent, and be restored, and they certainly wouldn't want that, would they?" Of course, this sarcastic statement may also reveal that the Lord himself is now bent on judgment, not reconciliation. Just as Pharaoh's rejection of Yahweh's ultimatum ignited judgment and foreclosed, at least temporarily, any opportunity for repentance, so the Lord may have come to the point where he has decreed to bring judgment before opening the door for repentance once more. The sarcastic statement in verse 10b would be an emphatic way of making this clear. (Perhaps we could expand our paraphrase: "Otherwise they might…repent, and be restored, and they certainly wouldn't want that, would they? Besides, it's too late for that!") Within this sarcastic framework, verse 10a must also be seen as ironic. As in verse 9 the imperatival forms should be taken as rhetorical and as anticipating the people's response. One might paraphrase: "Your preaching will desensitize the minds of these people, make their hearing dull, and blind their eyes." From the outset the Lord might as well command Isaiah to harden the people, because his preaching will end up having that effect. Despite the use of irony, we should still view this as a genuine, albeit indirect, act of divine hardening. After all, God did not have to send Isaiah. By sending him, he drives the sinful people further from him, for Isaiah's preaching, which focuses on the Lord's covenantal demands and impending judgment upon covenantal rebellion, forces the people to confront their sin and then continues to desensitize them as they respond negatively to the message. As in the case of Pharaoh, Yahweh's hardening is not arbitrarily imposed on a righteous or even morally neutral object. Rather his hardening is an element of his righteous judgment on recalcitrant sinners. Ironically, Israel's rejection of prophetic preaching in turn expedites disciplinary punishment, and brings the battered people to a point where they might be ready for reconciliation. The prophesied judgment (cf. 6:11–13) was fulfilled by 701 B.C. when the Assyrians devastated the land (a situation presupposed by Isa 1:2–20; see especially vv. 4–9). At that time the divine hardening had run its course and Isaiah is able to issue an ultimatum (1:19–20), one which Hezekiah apparently took to heart, resulting in the sparing of Jerusalem (see Isa 36–39 and cf. Jer 26:18–19 with Mic 3:12).This interpretation, which holds in balance both Israel's moral responsibility and the Lord's sovereign work among his people, is consistent with other pertinent texts both within and outside the Book of Isaiah. Isa 3:9 declares that the people of Judah "have brought disaster upon themselves," but Isa 29:9–10 indicates that the Lord was involved to some degree in desensitizing the people. Zech 7:11–12 looks back to the pre-exilic era (cf. v. 7) and observes that the earlier generations stubbornly hardened their hearts, but Ps 81:11–12, recalling this same period, states that the Lord "gave them over to their stubborn hearts."

You @GWH seem to speak of human cooperation periodically. You and some of us - including me - seem to note the importance of human choice in matters pertaining to God.

I don't really think at root this is too deep a mystery. I think human choice is and remains part of the equation since the Garden. And i think this answers the question this thread asks. I do leave opening for someone to convince me I'm wrong. But only by Scripture and not by Scripture by traditions.

I agree with everything you said, (but I would point out that the only difference between "calloused" and "dull" is that the former can refer to physical hardness on the fingers, whereas the latter can refer to physical wearing of blades :^)

 

[studier]

I agree with everything you said, (but I would point out that the only difference between "calloused" and "dull" is that the former can refer to physical hardness on the fingers, whereas the latter can refer to physical wearing of blades :^)

Yes, I understand the "calloused" definition and usage. Callouses on the hand for example form from extensive use and the feeling through a callous is much less sensitive than through skin without callous. Thus the heart when used repetitively in disobedience becomes more and more insensitive to God. Both the lexical definition and the word callous are speaking of insensitivity. I normally prefer to translate closer to the actual definition and then elaborate from there. The paraphrasing in translation seems to never end.