I mean. It does seem to state that directly, yes. The whole thing about God hardening hearts and stuff. Not a thing he’s supposed to be doing if choice is on the table.
No, it does not state this directly. It says that god has the power to do this, which why wouldn’t he? It doesn’t say he does this for every decision that people make.
That one part with the pharaoh? While there is an argument for a mistranslation in meaning and I usually err on the side of those, I don’t consider the linguistic nuance to have a huge difference in result here. Whether his heart was hardened or only reinforced, it was still a thing that God is heavily implied to have done to affect someone’s emotional decision-making.
A little birdy tells me Pharaoh was already pretty set on this course, and the only way to avoid impacting someone’s free will is to never interact with them at all (I don’t actually believe in free will for this reason). But some of what God is said to have done sounds more direct than a mere suggestion, and the presence of a plan and purposeful action toward that plan are acknowledged.
Romans 7:17 - 21
17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”
20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
A plan without a known end goal is not a plan, no? It’s barely a hobby. He says He has a goal. Either we have the freedom to fuck up the plan and are therefore dangerously close to equality on God’s own turf, or we don’t.
Yeah it says he does this to the pharaoh, not every person for every decision. Just because one person wasn’t in control of their decisions in one specific instance does not imply that no one is in control of their decisions ever. It demonstrates that this is a power that god has, which is obvious considering he’s supposed to be all powerful. This does not mean anything when it comes to free will.
It is a good point that the ability existing isn’t the same effect as the ability being used. Presuming He leaves most people alone, you do have a strong case for individual free will.
I would argue that God’s endgame existing at all does mean quite a bit in terms of how “free” a predictable chain of events can actually be, but it’s easy to get lost in the weeds there and I don’t know if that angle is something either of us is likely to be swayed on. At the very least, this is probably the nicest disagreement I’ve ever had on anything religious.
I mean. It does seem to state that directly, yes. The whole thing about God hardening hearts and stuff. Not a thing he’s supposed to be doing if choice is on the table.
No, it does not state this directly. It says that god has the power to do this, which why wouldn’t he? It doesn’t say he does this for every decision that people make.
That one part with the pharaoh? While there is an argument for a mistranslation in meaning and I usually err on the side of those, I don’t consider the linguistic nuance to have a huge difference in result here. Whether his heart was hardened or only reinforced, it was still a thing that God is heavily implied to have done to affect someone’s emotional decision-making.
A little birdy tells me Pharaoh was already pretty set on this course, and the only way to avoid impacting someone’s free will is to never interact with them at all (I don’t actually believe in free will for this reason). But some of what God is said to have done sounds more direct than a mere suggestion, and the presence of a plan and purposeful action toward that plan are acknowledged.
A plan without a known end goal is not a plan, no? It’s barely a hobby. He says He has a goal. Either we have the freedom to fuck up the plan and are therefore dangerously close to equality on God’s own turf, or we don’t.
Yeah it says he does this to the pharaoh, not every person for every decision. Just because one person wasn’t in control of their decisions in one specific instance does not imply that no one is in control of their decisions ever. It demonstrates that this is a power that god has, which is obvious considering he’s supposed to be all powerful. This does not mean anything when it comes to free will.
It is a good point that the ability existing isn’t the same effect as the ability being used. Presuming He leaves most people alone, you do have a strong case for individual free will.
I would argue that God’s endgame existing at all does mean quite a bit in terms of how “free” a predictable chain of events can actually be, but it’s easy to get lost in the weeds there and I don’t know if that angle is something either of us is likely to be swayed on. At the very least, this is probably the nicest disagreement I’ve ever had on anything religious.