My biggest problem with Born-Again Christianity

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

As an aside, a law professor asked the question, "What happens to the children of lawyers who refuse to read footnotes?"

Answer: "They starve."

Yes but in this case the footnotes are not original.

I agree that Paul is clearly arguing against the contemporary notion that Israel still retained a birthright to salvation.

And the passage is heavily laden with rhetoric.

But it's hard to argue that a verse like #18:
So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.
Should be interpreted in any way other than literally. May I ask what you make of this particular verse? Does God not, then, harden any hearts?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Yes but in this case the footnotes are not original.

I agree that Paul is clearly arguing against the contemporary notion that Israel still retained a birthright to salvation.

And the passage is heavily laden with rhetoric.

But it's hard to argue that a verse like #18:
So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.
Should be interpreted in any way other than literally. May I ask what you make of this particular verse? Does God not, then, harden any hearts?

No, this verse is metaphorical, clearly. Those who receive not the blessings of grace and salvation, through the precepts prescribed by God, have their hearts hardened against (or by) God for lack of blessings softening the heart.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No, this verse is metaphorical, clearly. Those who receive not the blessings of grace and salvation, through the precepts prescribed by God, have their hearts hardened against (or by) God for lack of blessings softening the heart.

Let me reiterate that I'm not even comfortable with the implications of this particular passage, so I don't really wish to put much effort into furthering this line of thought. (Though Aaron might wish to do so.) But your interpretation is a stretch of the text, at best. There's no metaphor in verse 18. It is what it is.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Let me reiterate that I'm not even comfortable with the implications of this particular passage, so I don't really wish to put much effort into furthering this line of thought. (Though Aaron might wish to do so.) But your interpretation is a stretch of the text, at best. There's no metaphor in verse 18. It is what it is.

I simply disagree that the interpretation you render is its necessary interpretation.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I simply disagree that the interpretation you render is its necessary interpretation.

I hope you are correct. I've always thought context established by chapter 8 lends this passage toward a deterministic interpretation. I should re-read the epistle.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I hope you are correct. I've always thought context established by chapter 8 lends this passage toward a deterministic interpretation. I should re-read the epistle.

I don't think there are too many hard core Calvinists out there anymore, although I have met a few, but only in Holland where most protestants come from the Calvinist tradition. Most US evangelicals I know like to include a free will element into their beliefs, but holding to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy would seem to make it hard for them to accept this verse. I don't know how they deal with it. I've never heard an explanation.