Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 2
The transcript insists, “We should not imagine that God deliberately blinds someone who would otherwise believe…He blinds the others by abandoning them to their darkness”; how does that portrayal of God’s foreknowledge and “turning His face away” challenge (or correct) common modern instincts about sovereignty, fairness, and human responsibility?
Another way to ask: How does the idea that God “blinds” people by leaving them in their chosen darkness challenge what we think is fair, what God controls, and what humans are responsible for?

Direct Answer The transcript presents God’s “blinding” as not an arbitrary act against willing believers, but as God foreknowing who will not believe and then “abandoning them to their darkness.” This pushes back against instincts that make God the direct author of unbelief; it places real responsibility on the unbeliever while still affirming God’s foreknowledge.

Support from Transcript:

  • “We should not imagine that God deliberately blinds someone who would otherwise believe. Rather, He knows in advance those who will believe.”
  • “He blinds the others by abandoning them to their darkness.”
  • Irenaeus: “Since God foreknows all things, He knows the number of those who will not believe. Accordingly, He has given them over to unbelief.”
  • “He has turned His face away…leaving them in the darkness they have chosen for themselves.”
  • Chrysostom: if the blindness were “involuntary…God [should] open their eyes,” but it was “voluntary and self-chosen.”
Discussion Follow-ups How does this framework affect how we speak about God’s justice when people remain hardened? Does it change how we pray for the spiritually blind?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10
Back Questions Next