However, coming back to the OP of this thread. God obligated israel to keeping ALL of the Law knowing fully well they were UNABLE to do so, but condemned them for failure!
This proves that the lack of ability does not relieve sinners from obligation or condemnation for failure.
How do you rationally or Biblically justify just condemnation for something they are completely unable to do??????
We justify it by Romans 5:12-19 where the whole human race consisted and existed and acted in one person - Adam - and willfully forfeited their ability to keep the Law of God by sinning.
Do these scriptures deny human RESPONSIBILITY?
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Skandelon, Dec 10, 2013.
Page 4 of 5
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
But has Israel (those stumbling, those being hardened, those being sent a spirit of stupor, those being cut off), stumbled beyond recovery, been hardened beyond hope of salvation, been blinded beyond hope of ever seeing, been cut off without hope of being grafted back in again? I'll allow Paul to answer each of those questions in his own words:
Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. That doesn't sound "irreversible" to me. -
ALL were "saved by grace through faith" from Adam onward - covered under the ONE Gospel "from Adam onward" and Paul points out that the "Gospel was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:7-8 as well as in Heb 4:1-2 "The Gospel was preached to US just as it was to THEM also".
The Gospel of God from the fall of man onward included the moral law of God written on the heart (Even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" admits to this) - and the promise of forgiveness illustrating Christ under the types of the animal sacrifices.
"They all drank from the same Spiritual ROCK (Petra) and that ROCK was Christ" 1Cor 10.
The Nation had not sinned when it swore allegiance to God - though some individuals likely sinned that very day - but no objection from God in heaven. Because they had a model, a system for mediation and forgiveness.
The "God is unreasonable so don't complain if we present him that way to the world" argument that Calvinism "needs" to rely upon - is flawed.
Hence the "Lament of God - vs Calvinism's Gospel saboteur" thread.
2. The second detail is similar to the first. God hold's people accountable for sinning because they do have the option of being freed from sin as Romans 6 and 1John 2:1 and 1John 3 insist.
Paul agrees that the lost sinner is enslaved to sinning in both Romans 8:6-8 and in Romans 6 and in Eph 2:1-6.
But the lost sinner has the choice to repent and serve God -- just as the drunk driver had the choice not to drink. You can argue that at a certain level of drunkeness the drunk has no ability to navigate the busy intersection - but he is held guilty anyway for each violation because he chose to drink.
in Christ,
Bob -
In John 12, Jesus states,"45 When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. 46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. 47 "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.
Two VITAL points are made here:
1. Notice which comes first regarding when we come out of darkness into the light? Calvinism likes to suggest that we come into the light so as to believe, but verse 46 states the opposite.
2. What condemns the man who rejects the gospel truth? The Law? NO! "the very word which I spoke will condemn him." -
But it is not a sin that they "could not help but commit".
The unreasonable-God story does not work in the case of Israel.
in Christ,
Bob -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
My system stands completely upon the undeniable fact that the entire human nature existed and consisted in ONE MAN who willingly sinned thus forfeiting his previous SINLESS condition and ability to sustain, maintain or obtain that forfeited SINLESS state prior to the fall. My system provides the only JUST basis for condemning fallen men for what they have no ability to do. -
No doubt that violation of the law is what sin is - and Christ perfectly fulfilled not only the righteous life demanded by the Law but also the penalty for sin demanded by the Law of God - thus the Law of God stands under the Gospel - fully in place while at the same time saving sinners from the second death - lake of fire in Rev 20
More than this - He provides the 1Cor 10 "Way of escape" so that "NO temptation" can over take the one who puts on the Gospel armor as long as the saints rely on the arm of strength - the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
If God were not going to save man - but rather burn him - not offering the Gospel - then why let generations live only to create new beings with new debt to roast in the fires of hell?
God would be complicit.
But instead God provides salvation from day ONE!.
Starting with Adam - the way of escape is made AND mankind is allowed to live and have new generations of children born in sinful state - with free will. And in this scenario God is love, is just, is merciful and is not complicit in their sins for he provides a way of escape from day one.
in Christ,
Bob -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The Post-defacto way of escape PROVES the problem rather than denies that is the condition of the fallen nature as there is no need for escape if you were ABLE to escape by simple obedience to that standard - there would be no need of Christ or salvation IF fallen man had ability to keep the law according to God's standard of obedience - Period! -
-
There has only EVER BEEN one way of escape and the Law was simply sent to reveal that truth. How can you possibly refer to salvation by grace through faith as "a post-defacto way of escape?" -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
"The wonder of God's mercy and grace is NOT that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves ANYONE!"
This is the very essence of what I believe, even as a non-Calvinist. God is not in any way morally obligated to save anyone because we deserve it. Again, this is a point upon which we can all agree.
However, God has obligated Himself, both morally and judicially, to save whosoever will come (believe). Not because they deserve it, but because He sent forth His Son to be a propitiation for sins of whole world, which is to be applied only through faith. His universal call to "every creature" to faith and repentance obligates him to save whosoever repents and believes. The doctrine that teaches that God only grants this ability to willingly repent and believe to a select few while appearing to call "every creature" is what causes the non-Calvinists to cry, "Foul!"
I don't believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because he condemns certain people to hell. We believe the Calvinistic view of God is unjust because He offers a pardon to all mankind while only granted a few of them the ability to receive it, all the while expressing a desire for all to come to repentance and a frustration for those who remain unwilling.
It is deceptive to offer someone a gift you fully know they cannot willingly receive. Especially if you, the giver, are the one who determines the receivers natural abilities. That type of offer cannot be genuine! -
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Here is where you system breaks down because God does obligate sinners to do what they are unable to do and justly condemns for not doing and that is proven by giving them the law and commanding them to do it in face of penalization for not doing all the time knowing they are completely unable to do it. This is just ONLY because all humanity existed and consisted in one indivisible human nature in ONE MAN who freely forfeited a PRE-FALLEN SINLESS OBEDIENT CONDITION thus ABILITY to fall into complete and total inability to be "subject to the law of God and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE."
Here is the archeles heel of your system and where it self-destructs as you have no other just basis for this than our interpretation of Romans 5:12. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Would you show how the blood is for the sins of all, yet applied to only a few?
John didn't make any such statement. Neither did Peter or Paul.
I realize that the thinking is because it is consistent with the "prevenient grace" thinking, but I just do not see it as consistent with Scriptures.
Of course, in showing that the blood was not applied to all, then you would also have to conclude that folks are cast into the Lake of Fire because of sins. (a common error)
Rather, the Scriptures are clear that the absence of the name in the book of life is the qualification for entry into the Lake of Fire. -
The rest of these posts have come full circle and I really don't see the point in rehashing it out... -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Start with Charles Hodge, Shedd, Dabney, and the other Hodge...they would be considered by some to be in the 4 point camp...and for good reasons that should be considered by all Calvinistic types. -
What some would state is because they didn't "choose" Christ.
However, Romans doesn't use the word choose, but confess.
Confess is testimony given of what already occurred. Not of what is to come or to serve as a catalyst to start an action.
Some might state it is because they didn't "accept" Christ.
However, John 3 clearly states it is not accept or reject but belief. Belief is a change in the core structures of which the intellect rely upon as principles to live - the difference shown in Saul compared to Paul - same person - core change.
So, why is it that many names are not in the book of life?
Because no reconciliation occurred.
John states (1 John) that a believer is known by keeping the commandments of God and treatment of the neighbors.
In my opinion, John was stating in brief what the Lord Jesus Christ shared in Matthew 7 to the background to the statement "And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’"
Page 4 of 5