Bryan, thank you for your response and comments (Listed below). I would hasten to point as to the first aspect of "logical consistency", that this was the same method of biblical exegesis and hermaneutic employed by both Jesus and Paul. To illustrate: When debating with the Pharisees about "whose son" the Christ is, the Pharisee's answered, "David's son". To which Jesus was careful to respond, that since David calls the Messiah his "Lord" ("The LORD, said to my Lord..."), how could he then be merely his son?" Jesus' point here was that it was an inconsistent and therefore illogical interpretation the Pharisees had employed. Since the Messiah was David's Lord, He could not be merely his son. Furthermore, when questioned by the Sadducees about the future role of a woman married to 7 husbands in this life, Jesus took an opportunity to correct them on the issue of whether or not there even is a future resurrection. He says that God said " I AM the God of Abraham, of Issac and of Jacob" and did this long after they had died physically. Evidently, the point Jesus is here making is that logically, since God said "I am...", rather than "I was...", this was sufficient scriptural proof that the patriarchs, though long dead physically, were still alive. My point? Jesus taking the scripture as it stood, employed the method of logical consistency when interpreting it and refuting other doctrines. Now, as to Ex 18. I admit, that for some time, this passage troubled me too. In my former days as a staunch Arminian (advocate of "free will"), I used to employ this passage often, as being representative of God's desire for all humanity. The passage of course, says no such thing though! It is addressed to the "house of Israel" who were the chosen people of God- the elect- of that time under the Law. To them, under the Law (with its external rules and regulations, which although in and of themselves, were "holy and good", as Paul says in Rom 7, were nevertheless, unable to produce righteousness, or supply the power to overcome sin and keep the Law), God said, "Why will you die O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that they turn and live." But that was representative of His will for Israel - His chosen people, at that time, which is who it was addressed to.Indeed , for the sake of the elect in the present covenant of grace, God is "not willing that any perish, but that all (of the elect) should come to repentance" as Peter says writing to "those who have obtained a like precious faith as ours" (2 Pe 1: 1), and "to God's elect" (1 Pe 1:1). And so none of them shall perish, for as Christ also said, "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all He has given Me, I should loose none, but should raise them up at the last day."
To "not lose" in this context means far more than the absurd idea of "misplace" which is how so many in the free-will camp, who deny hat eternal security is certainly promised to the elect here, must understand Jesus. That He was in effect merely claiming that He would not be guilty of misplacing or "losing" us in the sense of how someone can forget where they placed something of value! No, the opposite to "not lose" in this passage is "but raise them up". Therefore, if one of those whom the Father has "given" to the Son will not be raised to life, but damned, then according to this verse and its context, Jesus - the One who was entrusted with the eternal care and well-being of His elect, will in fact have "lost" that one. But this falure to fully obey the Father and "keep" all those entrusted to Him by the Father, is indeed an impossibility to and for Jesus.
To "lose" means to "not raise up to life", and since Jesus is the One to whom the Father has entrusted ALL judgment (Jn 5: 22), then only Jesus can damn someone. Since He is Himself "the resurrection and the life", and is the final judge, having been so entrusted and charged by the Father to not lose any that were given Him, we can rest assured that the elect themselves - whosoever they are, will ALL be saved! Jesus always delights to do the will of the Father, and in this case, it will be no different. Arguing therefore, as the free-will camp does, that "While Jesus will 'not lose' any, they can themselves choose to be lost" is an illogical statement! Because it negates the context and superimposes a meaning of "not lose", more akin to "misplace", than what Jesus meant by "fail to see raised to life". As if there were any doubt about Jesus' responsibility, so that the Father said to Him, "Make sure You do not for Your part, misplace any of the ones I give to You"!
This statement in Ezekiel, of God's desire that Israel be saved was a true expression of God's intention, for Israel at that time. But as an Arminian, I took it out of its context and assumed it was a blanket and true statement of God's desire and intention for all. This is not an appropriate thing to do or say. This prophecy was sent to Israel at that time. Later on, during the time of Hosea, God would say something completely different concerning Israel. This expression of God though was no longer indicative of His desire for Israel true during the time of Hosea, in which God declared, "I will no longer love (or as some translations render it, 'show mercy' to) the house of Israel that I should at all forgive them." (Hos 1: 6), but God declares that He intends to continue to show His mercy to Judah (1: 7). God here, shows sovereign selectivity, even among His own 'chosen people'. But what I want to emphasize is that He plainly says here, "I will no longer love (or show mercy to) Israel. Thus, God is obvously capable of choosing to NOT love or NO LONGER love someone or a group of people, as He plainly said. That is my point. God here knows that by "not forgiving", He is NOT loving, for "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things, love never fails." But to not forgive or be merciful any longer, is fundamentally and utterly incompatible with what "love" both is and acts like. God knew this and plainly stated, "I will no longer love them", because He knew that to love without forgiving is impossible - from His own definition of the word!This is precisely my point in stating that God's actions of "hardening" and or "blinding" someone are utterly inconsistent with the idea that while at the same time He "loves" them. Biblically, "love" is not merely a sentiment, or an abstract idea. it is a firm and practical commitment to its object, expressed by actions which are consistent with it. Hence, to "love one's neighbour", prevents one from "hating" him, or from stealing his property, or sleeping with his wife, or bearing false witness against him, etc. If someone were to claim they "loved" someone else, yet their actions were consistently shown to be the opposite of that claim, we would be hard pressed indeed to verify that they "loved" that one. The same is true and has to be true of God, for God IS love. Since love is not merely an emotional sentiment, but rather a commitment expressed by actions, my point stands, it is not possible that God "loves" those whom He Himself is said to "blind" and "harden". It is an impossibility and a logical absurdity for "Love seeks no ill towards it neighbour" as Paul said. Therefore, since He knows that by "blinding and hardening" those whom He has, He by His own action is preventing them from being able to "see" and "respond" to Christ and His truth, thereby ensuring they stay lost and damned, there is no practical way in which God can be said to "love" them. For such actions are fundamentally incompatible to and with 'love'. They are as opposite and mutually exclusive as black and white. They cannot co-exist together. ...But, even if for the sake of argument, I conceded your point. My statement was "However, those actions of “hardening and blinding” by God (mentioned earlier) are therefore, utterly incompatible with the assumption that He truly wants to save them. If He wanted to save them, He would not be actively hardening and blinding them so as to prevent them from being able to “turn to Him and be healed”! To us, as finite beings, who were created by God with a capacity for reason, this "incompatibility" I here mention, does indeed stand. If there is in God, some infinite way of "harmonizing" this obvious inconsistency, He has not shown or revealed to us, how that is. I merely stated the obvious, the actions of "hardening" and "blinding" are inconsistent with loving them. Since we're speaking of God, the personification of love, purity and perfection and not us, as struggling sinners, whereby this inconsistency might be explained by our lack of perfection, seeing such lack is not present in God, my point stands. And as I concluded that point, so now again, "This is a staggering and in fact unanswerable point, for those who cling to the “free will” rather than the sovereign-grace model. " Resting and trusting in His grace alone,
Hello all;
I welcome any and all questions and or comments related to any page or article posted by myself on this site. So please feel free!
In His grace,
John
