Cain's action

[Taylor]

Would value input because just this past weekend I was reading some posts (elsewhere), where the focus of the discussion is that, "ALL IS" God's ordained will.

I believe that everything that happens in our world, the good and the bad, are all God's will. Having said that, God also gives us the opportunity to make choices.

So let's look at examples in the bible.

A question had been asked by the rabbis. Why did God punish the Egyptians for enslaving the Hebrews? Didn't God tell Abraham that his descendants would be enslaved for 400 years? Weren't the Egyptians carrying out God's will? Maybe God should have rewarded them instead of punishing them?

So the answer is very simple. God simply told Abraham that his descendants would be slaves. God didn't say where or by whom. The Egyptians stepped up and volunteered to do it. In other words, they chose themselves to be the carrying out a bad mission. And for choosing to do a bad mission, they were punished.

Another example may be teased out of the book of Esther. The wicked Haman has manipulated the Persian king into a decree for the annihilation the Jews. The Jewish orphan Esther wins a beauty contest and is the queen. Her uncle, Mordechai, approaches her and tells her to act and save the Jews, even though by doing so she may imperil herself. He uses very deliberate language: “Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?”

Mordechai is saying two separate things here: Firstly, that if it's God's will that the Jews be saved, they will be saved regardless. But if it's God's will that the Jews be saved, why not do your part in carrying out His will? Why not, in other words, choose yourself for a good mission? And secondly, nothing is by chance. God placed you in the palace so that you might have the opportunity to carry out His will.

This line of thinking lends itself to modern day examples as well. I do not doubt that the Holocaust was God's will, for whatever unfathomable reasons He had "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" (Isaiah 55). But the German people chose themselves for a horrible mission, and so deserve punishment. Similarly, the modern day state of Israel is powerful thanks in part to American support. And so our country chose itself for a good mission and is the recipient of Genesis 12:3.

It even factors into the minor decisions in our life. Giving charity, even the smallest amount, choses us for a good mission. If it is God's will that the person have that help, someone will give it to them. Why not have that someone be you?

Which brings up yet another question I have.   If God gave mankind free will, why did God "harden the hearts" of some throughout history?   

He disallowed that "free will" at times.

[journeyman]

Which brings up yet another question I have.   If God gave mankind free will, why did God "harden the hearts" of some throughout history?   

He disallowed that "free will" at times.

God hardens the hearts of people just by being who he is. For instance, he hardened Pharaohs heart. How much hardening did God do by sending a nobody (Moses) with a demand to one of the most powerful men on earth? That king couldn't stand being told what to do by anybody.

[Athanasius]

I'm not being unclear Nazianzus.

1Jn.2:2 says atonement is made for the worlds sins by our Lord's sacrifice, but the worlds aren't forgiven until they realize they've sinned against God and ask for forgiveness.

1Pet.2:24 says what was done to Jesus on the cross was sinful and he bore it. I have already shown from Pro.6:16-19 that in God's eyes, all those sins committed against the Messiah were an abomination.

2Cor.5:21 says Jesus had no sin, but was made sin, or sinful for us. The only way that can happen is by false witnesses, which it did. God permitted this.

And I understand What Moses was saying very well.

And our great Lord certainly did take on the sins of this world by enduring the mocking of those who beat and crucified him and the hatred of those who convicted him.

The 'but' is irrelevant with respect to 1 John 2:2. As you knowledge, Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

1 Peter 2:4 clearly states that Jesus bore our sins (i.e. took responsibility). The 'our' that Peter has in mind are members of the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithnyia, and not, as you're suggesting, the sins of those who abused Jesus on the cross (1 Peter 2:23).

That's not right about 2 Corinthians 5:21, and further to my point, alternative readings of 5:21 might mention Jesus as sin offering.

Annddddd no, Jesus didn't take on the sins of the world through the mechanism of enduring mockery and beating on the cross.

I didn't think you were being unclear.

[Athanasius]

Well, and traditional Christian doctrine is that Jesus took on the sin of the world (i.e. all human sin). New Gospel indeed!

An additionally amusing factor is that he's now trying to sell his religion to me, even as his religion isn't even Christianity in the normative sense of the word. If I was interested in converting to another religion (which I am not), I wouldn't adopt a religion as practiced by one individual over a religion practiced by a very large number of people. Especially when that individual doesn't even know what's in the holy writ of their religion.

Yeah but like, what if he's got special glasses?

[Taylor]

Which brings up yet another question I have.   If God gave mankind free will, why did God "harden the hearts" of some throughout history?   

He disallowed that "free will" at times.

God hardens the hearts of people just by being who he is. For instance, he hardened Pharaohs heart. How much hardening did God do by sending a nobody (Moses) with a demand to one of the most powerful men on earth? That king couldn't stand being told what to do by anybody.

True, but I have to wonder if God is "hardening the hearts" of present-day leaders for some divine purpose, as well.   Honestly, the things that are happening in the world today seem surreal and even bizarre, contrary to logic, reason and my concept of "reality".   Almost like it is supernatural, in nature.   Hmm....

[Athanasius]

Imo, God hardened Pharoah's act by extension. That is, Pharaoh hardened his own heart in response to Moses and Aaron, in response to God; God put Pharaoh in a position to act, and Pharaoh acted to deepen his disobedience and rebellion. God actively hardening people's hearts, then killing, say, their first born children, doesn't seem to jive with how the OT describes God elsewhere.

[journeyman]

The 'but' is irrelevant with respect to 1 John 2:2. As you knowledge, Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

Atonement, or propitiation, or appeasement, is what our Lord did being one with the Father. Bringing sinners into at-one-ment with God. Our Creator in flesh could have easily destroyed his enemies, but instead turned his own wrath away.

1 Peter 2:4 clearly states that Jesus bore our sins (i.e. took responsibility). The 'our' that Peter has in mind are members of the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithnyia, and not, as you're suggesting, the sins of those who abused Jesus on the cross (1 Peter 2:23).

The sins he bore were committed against him, inflicted on him. Even disagreeing with, or contradicting the Lord is sin, which people do to God every day. Read Pro.6:16-19. Those seven sins are an abomination to God and were all committed against his Son. Read it!

That's not right about 2 Corinthians 5:21, and further to my point, alternative readings of 5:21 might mention Jesus as sin offering.

Yes it is right, but I have no objection to seeing "sin offering", because it shows how our Lord suffered unjustly (Cp. Exo.29:14 with Heb.13:11-13) and to bear his reproach. If Jesus was being punished in place of us, how are we going to bear his reproach?

Annddddd no, Jesus didn't take on the sins of the world through the mechanism of enduring mockery and beating on the cross.

Oh yes he did and much more, because sin is against God and sin is
common to all of us. Paul said,

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; Phil.3:10

If Jesus was suffering in place of sinners, it wouldn't even be possible for any person to know his sufferings  But believers can know his sufferings when they're being persecuted as he was,

If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. Jn.15:20

as the sufferings of Christ abound in us  2Cor.1:5

I didn't think you were being unclear.

I'm glad.

[journeyman]

True, but I have to wonder if God is "hardening the hearts" of present-day leaders for some divine purpose, as well.   Honestly, the things that are happening in the world today seem surreal and even bizarre, contrary to logic, reason and my concept of "reality".   Almost like it is supernatural, in nature.   Hmm....

Leaders don't seem to want anything to do with him. They say they do, but then call each other names and try to belittle one another. They don't seem to want to pray for each other. Instead of acknowledging that we're all sinners, the focus of political leaders in the USA is that the other guy is stupid. It's sad.

[agnostic]

God actively hardening people's hearts, then killing, say, their first born children, doesn't seem to jive with how the OT describes God elsewhere.

Honestly?

It's entirely in line with how God acts in parts of the OT.

Examples

Deuteronomy 2:30 But King Sihon of Heshbon was not willing to let us pass through, for the LORD your God had hardened his spirit and made his heart defiant in order to hand him over to you, as he has now done.

Joshua 11:20 For it was the LORD’s doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Without incredible mental gymnastics or seriously twisting the text, the Bible plainly assigns responsibility to God in these cases, not the people, for their "hardened hearts," saying that he did so to "rig" events to enable Israel's invasion of Canaan. (Couldn't God have just done the reverse? Softening their hearts to make them more compassionate toward the plight of the wandering Israelites?)

And see John 12:40, which quotes Isaiah 6:10, "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart," to explain why people didn't believe Jesus was the messiah even after witnessing miracles he performed. The author is saying God actively caused people to stubbornly disbelieve what they say with their own eyes (compare).

And there are several examples in the OT of God killing children, ordering children to be killed, or orchestrating the deaths of children.

[Athanasius]

Couldn't God have just done the reverse? Softening their hearts to make them more compassionate toward the plight of the wandering Israelites?

If these rulers had let Israel pass by peacefully it wouldn't have given the Israelites the opportunity to annihilate them for their sin. So, take it either way: active, direct hardening via manipulation of the person, or indirect hardening via circumstance, revelation, etc. Personally, I find the indirect notion more compelling. We could think of this as God hardening the heart of so-and-so through revealing Himself to that person (without the accompanying grace?), through miracles of the kind in Egypt, and so on.

Without incredible mental gymnastics or seriously twisting the text, the Bible plainly assigns responsibility to God in these cases

Under both approaches, God would be responsible.

not the people, for their "hardened hearts," saying that he did so to "rig" events to enable Israel's invasion of Canaan.

However, under the indirect approach, the person would still be blameworthy for how they acted. In Pharaoh's case, it's only after the 5th plague that God is described as hardening his heart (again I would turn to the indirect view), so we don't have an immediate hardening of the heart by the divine leading to X, Y, Z. Otherwise, we run into this odd notion of God forcing sin that He then punishes even though He is responsible and blameworthy for its occurrence.

If you want to think that's mental gymnastics or twisting of the text that's for you to do I suppose, but I did indicate this distinction between the two types of hardening in my fuller reply, which you didn't quote.

[Fenris]

And our Lord Jesus knows the OT better than you do.

On the other hand, I think I know it better than you do.

[journeyman]

On the other hand, I think I know it better than you do.

I'm sure you don't, as the King said,

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Jn.6:45

[Fenris]

I'm sure you don't

I'm sure I do.

[agnostic]

If these rulers had let Israel pass by peacefully it wouldn't have given the Israelites the opportunity to annihilate them for their sin.

This is just the old "let me in so I can save you from what I'll do to you if you don't let me in" circular reasoning.

God hardened their hearts so they would attack Israel just because he can, so why doesn't he soften their hearts so they would help Israel instead? "Because then Israel wouldn't be justified in killing everyone for their sins!" So... couldn't God soften their hearts so that in addition to helping Israel, they also repent for their sins? Or is violence literally the only possible solution here?

All it succeeds in doing is to go down one turtle in the inherent moral problem of God blaming people for how he supernaturally forced them act.

my fuller reply, which you didn't quote.

It's not necessary to quote an entire comment when we can just scroll up to read it. I quote small parts to provide context for what I'm replying to.

[journeyman]

I'm sure I do.

That's what rabbis who disagreed with the Messiah thought.