To change to what I said and to add Satan to the discussion reveals wicked motives.
No. Look back at what I said and look back at what you said.
I said God takes sides against the devil. You rejected that by claiming God doesn't take sides.
Did you misspeak?
I've had my fill of that Dispensationalist BS gambit to attack a person when your ability to logically defend your argument fails. I know you said you were formerly a Dispensationalist but it's idiotic comments like this that make me question how 'former' that status really is. Rise above this nonsense. Don't play stupid games. You are better than this. Don't disappoint my expectations of you.
You claimed God doesn't pick sides and I put forward two examples about how your interpretation is completely incorrect and utterly untenable. You don't need to attack someone personally just because someone challenged your bad argument.
God hardened Pharaoh's heart because Pharaoh refused to
No. There is nothing in the passage that indicates that God's choice was contingent upon any choice of Pharaoh's. God did something to ensure that Pharaoh would act in a desired way. God removed Pharaoh's free will regarding that choice.
And this is addressed in Romans 9.
"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" - Rom 9:19 KJV
Read the surrounding verses for context. Clear as day this is talking about Pharaoh being unable to resist God's will. And God willed Pharaoh not to let Moses and the other Israelites go.
God knew the heart of Pharaoh and knew what he would do,
Yes, and God knew the exact cause and effect needed to ensure that Pharaoh would perform as God intended. His intention for hardening Pharaoh's heart was to specifically elicit the desired action of not releasing the people. God willed the Pharaoh not to release the people. Pharaoh had no free will to choose otherwise.
yet he gave him chance after chance for him to change his mind.
Read Exodus again, that's not what happened.
Your Calvinistic mindset forbids you to look at the word of God from a different perspective.
Let me clarify my question. I don't understand what you are calling Calvinistic. Out of the positions I have indicated here, what are you describing to be Calvinistic and what aspect of Calvinism are you applying within that description?
Where is your "sinful nature"? Paul was speaking about how his FLESH warred against the law of God making it impossible for him to obey it perfectly.
You come across like you are playing coy with a very simple concept. The KJV of course doesn't have the specific phrase "sinful nature" verbatim. But it is synonymous with what is talked about. And other translations do go so far as to spell it out word for word as "sinful nature" such as NIV in Rom 7:18 (as much as I dislike NIV).
"I am carnal" describes the fact that Paul has a carnal fleshly nature that causes him to sin. The carnal mind is against God (cf. Rom 8:7) and therefore is sinful. That which is done without faith is sin.
Would you prefer I rephase my response to say "carnal mind" instead of "sinful nature"? For the purposes of our discussion, they mean the same thing.
Paul was either referring to the time before he came to Christ, or he was speaking about the carnal mind of a Jew
I think you had mentioned your perspective about this in a different thread a few months back under your other username. I still don't agree with the concept that Paul would be speaking in retrospect rather than in frank honesty about his then current biological impulses.
I would go so far to say that since the early Church accepted the concept that those in Christ can sin/ trespass (and from there be forgiven our trespasses), it stands that all Christians should accept that concept. I realize there is a divide between Roman Catholicism and Greek Catholicism because one believes in inherent sinful nature comes Adam and the other doesn't. I propose that regardless of origin, that carnal mind still exists for all people but that a silent or still carnal mind cannot sin. It's just that most people don't have a perfectly still carnal mind (and therefore sin takes place).
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SINFUL NATURE. That is a man-made doctrine void of biblical proof.
Relative to the early Church, what you are proposing in your comment is a heresy. Even Luther accepted the teachings of the early Church.
There are two things that matter in Biblical study: the Bible itself, and early Church doctrine (e.g. the Trinity).
2
2
