Goodness, FK, I am beginning to believe that you really can't see the folly in your own words, no offense intended. If they don't believe (i.e. If they "experience" that they are rejecting Chirst) it is by God's will and not their own according to the Reformed theology.
So, in reality, they are not rejecting Christ, but are forced by God to reject Christ (even though they "experience"—rather they are being deceived, by whom, by God?—that it is by their free will).
If God is in control and we have no free will then God moves us and God makes our decisions; we are puppets and He is the puppet master. All the strings are His. And what we do is strict obedience to God's will, no matter if it's good or evil.
You "figured out" that in the case of Pharaoh all he had to do is let Pharaoh to his own devices and he knew the Pharaoh would not relent. But that flies in the face of your Reformed theology.
If God is always in control, then we can't do anything on our own, whether it's good or evil. The sin of omission is not an option here. Puppets on the string do nothing unless the puppet master pulls their strings.
But the Bible says that God specifically hardened the Pharaoh's heart so that he would not relent. So, it was not the Pharaoh's own decision, but God's. By this logic, Judas and Hitler were simply obedient God's servants.
This is not the Christ we know from the Gospels. In your faith, the only root cause if God, even of evil. In Catholic/Orthodox Churches God did not create sin, death and evil. He did not ordain it. God is Life; He gives and creates life. God did not create death. Death is corruption. God creates nothing that is corrupt.
The phrase means God hardened pharaohs heart by challenging him..
NOT by any divine magic or CURSE...
Happens on THIS THREAD all the time..
Challenge an "UNbeliever" and it just hardens them to be more recalcitrant..
When in another setting they would just declare, "I never looked it that way before"..
Everything that happens is by God's will, but not necessarily by God's last action. However, in the way you are framing the issue you merely assign this responsibility to God, on our behalf, but you do not explain how it works. What did God do to earn this responsibility? For example, it sounds very much like you are saying that the mere act of creation puts an obligation on God to offer salvation to all. Therefore, in your mind, if Reformers deny that God offers salvation to all, then God is responsible for all who are not saved. This hypothesis would match everything you have said so far. If this is true, then how do you make the connection between the act of creation and the responsibility you assign to God?
So, in reality, they are not rejecting Christ, but are forced by God to reject Christ ...
This confirms my hypothesis. The mistake you make here is in equating God's will with who does the action, and who is responsible for that action. Consider the alternative that you are defending, which is, that man thwarts God's will, or that God doesn't care enough to have a will. That would be a very weak God in my book.
If God is in control and we have no free will then God moves us and God makes our decisions; we are puppets and He is the puppet master.
No, you jump from God is in control directly to God forces us to do evil. That is a false conclusion. God is in control means He gets what He wants. People make their own decisions to sin, without His help. There is no nexus without a duty, and that is what I am asking you to explain.
All the strings are His. And what we do is strict obedience to God's will, no matter if it's good or evil.
As we discussed earlier, your use of the word would have the Cardinals "obeying" me if they come back to win the division. It is not the normal use of the word.
If God is always in control, then we can't do anything on our own, whether it's good or evil. The sin of omission is not an option here. Puppets on the string do nothing unless the puppet master pulls their strings.
And so your analogy fails. Why is it impossible for God to simply leave people to their own sinful natures?
But the Bible says that God specifically hardened the Pharaoh's heart so that he would not relent. So, it was not the Pharaoh's own decision, but God's. By this logic, Judas and Hitler were simply obedient God's servants.
No, this is your interpretation of scripture you already believe to be false on its face. Your interpretation is not consistent with any other scripture I can think of. However, my interpretation, which is that God left Pharaoh to his own sinful nature, knowing the result, IS consistent with other scripture such as:
Rom 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Wages are earned, not given out as a gift or curse. Pharaoh earned the consequences of his sin. Pharaoh was responsible. This is one reason why your view of us is incorrect.