Also the suggestion that you can solve the free-will versus determinism debate in philosophy, on the authority of the Bible alone is an epistemological fail, so there's no point in trying to prove that the Bible endorses it either way.
At best it's just what the Orthodox might call a homologumenon, in other words, cool_story_bro.jpg
Yes, context is key and you should also try to figure out the point the writer is trying to prove. But I believe that there is no possible alternative when reading the verses that I have posted. If there is I would love to hear it.
Beautiful quote by tertullian. The funny thing is that even though tertullian said that, little did he know he himself was actually reading pagan philosophy into the scripture. I see that we are moving from a debate about what the bible says to one of philosophy and epistemology and other such things but it's funny since assuming that you are a cathodox you believe in the trinity, a doctrine that relies heavily on gnostic terms such as ousia and hypostasis to explain itself. Just because it uses terms and language foreign to the bible does that mean it is false? I mentioned earlier that I don't just find verses in the bible that say words but also try to see if the purpose of the text is to prove what I want it to. That is, when it uses such terms does it mean it in the sense that I mean it? This is why although romans 8 talks about predestination I don't use it because it does not neccesarily entail my definition of it.
But if we go on I like how you compare our view of predestination to the stoic and greek view of it. To the greeks fate was a immaterial force that favoured no one and had to real purpose. Even the gods were subject to it and couldn't resist fate. On the other hand, as Ephesians 1:11 states, all things are predestined for a purpose and that is to bring all of God's people back to him and for God to be glorified.
I think you've misunderstood sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is just that we see the bible as the ultimate authority and we can use philosophy, which I see as a way to understand things at their most basic level. And that is fine but you should never substitute the bible for philosphy but rather philosophy is a tool that we use to understand the bible and theology better.
Let's back it up a minute. We're not naturalists, so there are two ways things can be predestined.
I get the decided impression that Paul is talking about predestination in the first sense, meaning our final fate and purpose is to be united to God. I am disinclined to believe that he was speaking in the second sense. Hard determinism was considered fringe back then (and still is to some extent today). The consensus in Cathodox circles is free will, and I as an Anglican (yeah I know) we agree.
There is nothing new under the sun. There's early evidence for questioning God's word in the garden of Eden, still doesn't make it right even a little bit. This whole point is completely irrelevant it gets you nowhere. If we as individuals reject the concrete meaning of words such as all then pretty soon we're talking past each other with completely different languages that sound the same.
Arminians reject eternal security though. So what does that have to do with any of the scripture I brought up? Calvinist and arminians are both wrong and a total false dichotomy.
Now you're confusing foreknowledge with actively preventing belief which is what hardening is. Also, I'm pretty sure the Pharaoh wasn't an unborn child when God said this. There's good reason to believe by this point he was quite possibly reprobate or a good way towards it. And we know that he hardened his own heart first early on, we can account that to the Pharaoh himself.
You would like to lay all the blame for sin at the feet of God, but Jeremiah 19:5 clearly demonstrates that he is not the author of sin, as I have said before.
They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: - Jeremiah 19:5
This still doesn't remove accountability to Pharaoh for his sins. This was pharaoh being recompensed for his own actions and God used it to magnify his own glory in the process. This doesn't remove accountability.
Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.
For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways. - Job 34:10-11
No it doesn't. Only by your tragically ill-conceived logic. Also 2 Peter 2:1 specifically states that reprobates are denying the Lord that bought them.
Now you're the one limiting God. You just said he can't find a way to get to his stated end without authoring people to sin. So you just blamed God for every sin and disobedience and aquitted every person of it, while also limiting the capability of God by saying some things are beyond him. The actual truth of scripture far exceeds that view:
But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. - Genesis 50:20
This doesn't mean God is the author of sin though. What part of that do you not get?