Exodus 7-12(the Egyptian Plagues) demolishes the Christian Doctrine of Free Will

Introduction: Clearly my opponent is more formidable than the typical Calvinist (though I have never debated KRFournier). I would like to call attention to the resolution before progressing. In order for my opponent to "tear down completely" the doctrine of free will, he must show that his interpretation is in fact the ONLY possible interpretation. My proposition (though far superior) need not be true or known to be true – it need not be so much as plausible. Really all it needs to be is possible. If my offered interpretation is possible, then my opponent has failed to destroy the doctrine of free will (he has only possibly destroyed it). But, irrespective of the aforesaid, I believe I can show that my offered interpretation is not only possible, but far more congenial to the text and Semitic culture. .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? 1. Understanding Hebrew Idioms The caricature of my defense as "the bible doesn't say, what it means" apologetic notwithstanding, clearly there is a stylistic aspect that my opponent wishes to disregard. Either Pharaoh and God were playing past-the-baton in regards to whom would do the hardening, or the author of Exodus is employing a Semitic idiom. The very fact that there are two different and distinct Hebrew words used depending on who is "doing" the hardening, only lends credence to theory that the author was trying to stylistically distinguish the difference between God's action and Pharaoh's action. Deuteronomy 28:68 is an example in which an active verb is used to express an action that did not ACTUALLY occur. It states, "You will be sold to your enemies…and no man will buy you." Of course it is impossible to simultaneously be sold and not be sold, so the intended rendering would actually be "you will be put up for sale." Jeremiah 4:10 is an example of an active verb being use to designate permission or allowance of the action. God allowed them to be deceived. There is another nuance that plays in my favor in regards to the Hebrew word Chazaq. Chazaq is not strictly used as forced or hardened. But it can also mean confirmed (2388 Strong's). That is to say, God did not force Pharaoh to harden his heart, but rather confirmed his firmly established proclivity to harden his own heart. This is evidenced by the fact that Pharaoh unilaterally hardened his own heart in many cases (8:15, 32; 9:34; 10:3; 13:5). Furthermore, stepping out of the context of Exodus, we see that contemporary Semitic authors were very aware of the idiom and the proper interpretation of Exodus 7-12 – 1 Samuel 6:6a states, "Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did?" Bullwinger and James MacKnight have not been adequately refuted. It is still very possible, and indeed very plausible, that the author of Exodus was employing an idiomatic device. "Clearly God hardened Pharaoh's heart to display his power to the Egyptians supported by; Exodus 7:5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it." Being aware of an event in advance does not equal causation of said event. This is not an example of God causing an event to occur, but, in His sovereignty, using said event for His own purposes. .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? 2. Not enough evidence to demolish My opponent uses the rapture as an example of a doctrine that stands on one section of scripture. There are not only verses that contradict the idea of pretribulation ratpure (that is if we accept the idea of tribulation. Being a partial preterest, I disagree even here), there is virtually no additional evidence for the idea of the rapture (and that which does exist is sorely wanting). I would contend that the doctrine of the rapture does indeed fail as a doctrine by the criteria aforesaid. "Free Will talks to the nature of God himself, and must be supported by God in EVERY INSTANCE in his interaction with mankind in order to be truth for all mankind." And "God cannot provide disproportionate free will to mankind, and remain perfect and benevolent and, most importantly, just." And "If God interferes with the free will of one man/woman in human history, then the claims of his perfect justness are untrue." God using pre-established behavior is not a negation of free will, but a use of it. Furthermore, to say that God could not have superimposed His will over the free will of pharaoh and simultaneously remain omnibenevolent and just, is simply false. God is the metric by which we judge. It must be good and just by the mere fact that God did it. To say differently would place morality outside of the character of God and therefore necessitate the explanation and origin of this alternative and transcendental entity that is morality – a burden that would be yours. Even if you were correct, then, that God did negate Pharaoh's free will, this would only mean that the doctrine of free will is 99.9% accurate – this, of course, is a few bricks short from completely tearing down the monolithic bastion of free will. .;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^? Conclusion: My opponent has not adequately refuted the possibility of a Hebrew idiom or the possibility that God merely confirmed a pre-established condition. Moreover, he completely disregards the approach of systematic theology that seeks to understand the Bible holistically. Indeed, the very fact that free will is attested by virtually every book in the Old and New testament only makes the idea of an idiomatic usage in Exodus 7-12 all the more plausible.