John 3:16

I'm new here and am still deciding where I stand on this issue. I've been reading, without posting for awhile and have really appreciated Helen's posts - don't get discouraged Helen.

"Responsibility"...how do you respond to the comment that without Ability there is no genuine responsibility?

Jacob

 

It is not God's fault that we are born sinners, spiritually dead. We did that to ourselves in Adam.

I see you are new to the Baptist Board, Jacob. Welcome.

Ken

 

That this is the teaching of Pelagius, not of Scripture. Not "calling names" here, just pointing out that this is the exact argument of the Pelagian position. By the way, just a church history note, this position was condemned as heresy by more church councils than any other in the history of the Church.

The Scriptures teach that all people are responsible for their own actions. Sinners rebel according to their own desires / lusts. Sinners refuse God because they want to reject Him. The fault is with sinners, and they are held responsible for it.

Rev. G

 

Thanks, Jacob. I really appreciate that.

There was mention of 'were born' in John 1:13. HOWEVER, in John 1:12, we read the sequence of events in the tenses:

"But as many as received him..." -- past tense
"...to them He gave..." -- past tense
"...the right to become children of God,... -- future tense by present infinitive
"...[even] to those who believe in His name..." -- present tense

so please do not separate verse 13 from verse 12, as the two are not even different sentences, but the same sentence. Thus, the meaning of verse 13 is that those who have been given the right to become children of God, when they were born again, were born by God's will, not because of heritage by blood line or anything a man could do.

You must go back to the beginning of the sentence. This is given to those who received Christ and believe. The first action is listed in the past, the second in the present, and "to become" children of God is, then, a result of both of those.

This does not make man sovereign. It does make God's plan not quite Calvinistic, though.

[ November 20, 2002, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

That this is the teaching of Pelagius, not of Scripture. Not "calling names" here, just pointing out that this is the exact argument of the Pelagian position. By the way, just a church history note, this position was condemned as heresy by more church councils than any other in the history of the Church.

The Scriptures teach that all people are responsible for their own actions. Sinners rebel according to their own desires / lusts. Sinners refuse God because they want to reject Him. The fault is with sinners, and they are held responsible for it.

Rev. G</font>[/QUOTE]If they have no alternative to their choice, then it is not a choice at all, but something inevitable, which they cannot change, and thus for which they cannot be held responsible.

How is it that pagan legal systems are more just than God? Can't happen.

Go ahead, punish that toddler for spilling a glass of milk when his hands were not big enough to grip it properly...

 

An illustration on responsibility might help.

If a bank allows me to run up a $1 billion debt, I am responsible for it, even though I don't have the ability to pay it.

God allowed man to run up an infinite debt and we are responsible even though we don't have the ability to pay the debt.

Hallelujah, Christ paid that debt for His sheep!

Ken

 

Punishment or not, the toddler is responsible for the spill.

Ken

[ November 20, 2002, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

It is not God's fault that we are born sinners, spiritually dead. We did that to ourselves in Adam.

I see you are new to the Baptist Board, Jacob. Welcome.

Ken</font>[/QUOTE]Please, please some Calvinist explain to me how Jesus can say that the angels of the little ones ALWAYS see the face of the Father in heaven if these little ones are born separated from God, i.e. spiritually dead.

 

Punishment or not, the toddler is responsible for the spill.

Ken</font>[/QUOTE]Baloney! If I were the mother, I would have been responsible for giving him a glass too large!

I SINCERELY hope you are not a daddy, Ken, because punishing a toddler for what he could not help is child abuse in all fifty states.

 

Ken, was there that in your nature which forced you to borrow that much?

If not, the analogy doesn't work.

 

They do have an alternative, but they WON'T do it because of their rebellious, stone-cold, hateful hearts. And they ARE responsible.

You are correct. But then again, your argument on your position dealing with election is with the Apostle Paul:

Romans 9:14-16 - "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."

Bad analogy for many, many, many reasons. Nice try in using the emotive technique, though.

Rev. G

 

God does not love every man without exception. The doctrine of the word of God cannot be reconciled with this Arminian, humanistic lie. God hated Esau before he committed any good or evil act (Rom. 9:11-13). God hated Esau not because He knew Esau would reject Him because God hated Esau without any regards to anything He knew Esau would do. This is called the sovereignty of God. It is inconsistent to teach God loves every man without exception, and He sent Jesus to die for every man without exception, but God does not deliver the gospel to every man without exception to give him a "chance" to be saved. God is not a God of chance, but of purpose (Is. 14:24). The love of God resulted in the salvation of the Ephesian church (Eph. 2:4). If God loves every man without exception, why is everyone not saved if salvation is the result of the love of God. Certainly God would not send a man whom He loved to hell because nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:39). The elect have been the children of God from all eternity because He died for the children of God (Jn. 11:52). Why, if God loves every man without exception, does not every man receive a "chance" to be saved? Did Jesus obtain eternal redemption for every man without exception and cast the lot into the laps of man to dispose of it in whatever way he sees fit? How many Arminians on this board go into all the world as a witness for the testimony of Jesus Christ? How many souls have you "won?" How much money do you give to "missionaries?" How often do you go the extra mile to deliver the gospel to the unlearned and heathen? If you are like most Arminians I know the answers to the questions above are "none," "none," "a dollar here and there," and "never." That makes you, in my humble opinion, a hypocrite guilty of sending souls to hell.

 

They do have an alternative, but they WON'T do it because of their rebellious, stone-cold, hateful hearts. And they ARE responsible.</font>[/QUOTE]That's not biblical.

Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for afish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, now how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
Matthew 7:9-11

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him; but their thinking BECAME futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they BECAME fools...
furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to RETAIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
Romans 1:21-22, 28

You are correct. But then again, your argument on your position dealing with election is with the Apostle Paul:

Romans 9:14-16 - "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."</font>[/QUOTE]Aren't you the one who denied mercy was needed?

Never mind...

The context of that chapter is that Gentiles are to be included, and this was hateful to the Jews for the most part. Please don't take it out of context.

Bad analogy for many, many, many reasons. Nice try in using the emotive technique, though.
</font>[/QUOTE]If I didn't think it was a good analogy, I wouldn't have used it.

[ November 20, 2002, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

John 3:19-20 - "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."

 

No, I don't think I was. Mercy needed for what?

 

Yes, welcome to the Board, friend!

Rev. G

P. S. (Please be patient with us, as well!)

 

I'm not taking it out of context. I'm sticking with an ancient interpretation, not a novel one that has only recently come into existence.

Hateful to the Jews? Why would this be unjust? All the way back in Genesis God revealed that He would be gracious to the Gentiles ("all nations"). It was VERY explicit in Isaiah (especially Is. 9).

Why would Pharaoh be included in the discussion if the context is "hateful to the Jews"? Why would the discussion of the twins, having done neither good nor evil, be included in such a discussion? Who is taking it out of context?