Romans 9:20-21

[WIP]

I think it is possible for us to make the right decisions about sin with God and I think the man, Jesus, demonstrated it for us but I also think it is not possible for us to make the right decision about sin. Now does that twist our brain? The reason it is not possible is because we have a sinful nature. This is why we absolutely need a savior. God to help us!

 

[ivdavid]

Debating and intellectualism just hasn't been able to sway me from these simple truths I see in these verses.

If debating does not progress toward a conclusion and if intellectualism does not make it easier to understand complex truth - then such is vanity and I'd respect your decision to stay away from it. From where I stand, I can only state that I don't think that's what's been happening here.

Firstly, there is a sort of innocence thrown about doctrines that are 'simple truths'(occam's razor?) as opposed to its contrary doctrine that could make one proclaim - "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" What you see as 'simple truths' may be an oversimplification of all the factors involved wherein you might unwittingly be holding manifold contradictions too - that might be shown you only by God - perhaps through profitable 'debating'. [I was regenerated while reading an apologetic book!]

I agree with you that God did not cause the sin. BUT he imputed that sin to every man.

And why did God impute sin to every man? Was it because God simply wanted to - or because every man deserved it as Adam did(I believe this)? This is the crucial information I need from your end to proceed further.

We are born with a sin nature(therefore we sin), did you have a choice in that? No. Rom 5:12;Rom 5:18

Effectively, I had as much choice as Adam did - that's the doctrine of Federal headship, which I assume you concur with. And yes, we do commit sin because we are born with a sin nature.

He righteously and Justifiably imputed that sin nature to every man...

Because? Why was God Just and Righteous in imputing the sin nature to every man - was it only to serve His future purposes OR primarily because every man deserved it as Adam did? [This is a repeat-question, only to lay focus on this]

So we are back too:

I wouldn't say that at all. If you have conceded that God is not the cause of sin at all - then He cannot be held responsible for all the harmful effects and consequences of sin - would you agree?

And here "we're back to" my response to your first argument -
1. God 'allows access' to all
2. sin prevents man in the flesh
3. God is not the cause of sin
4. man is condemned for his own negative volition
5. the righteous Judge may or may not have mercy now.
Where is the issue here?

Point 1 is what you hold and what I concur with. Point 3 is what we've now declared we both agree upon. Point 2 is what I propose as an additional factor to your seemingly oversimplified framework of 'simple truths' - and Point 4 is a derived consequence of this Point 2. Point 5 logically follows Point 4. If you are then to have an issue with this argument, it seems to be only with Point 2 - is that so? Do you believe that man in the (sinful)flesh can obey God's will in a manner that's pleasing to Him?

 

[ivdavid]

Isn't Christ's sacrifice a response that follows our condemnation - why were we condemned then in the first place?

Perhaps you've missed this question - your response to this would fill a huge gap in my understanding of your position.

Do you think Jesus forced Judas to honor himself or do think Judas made up his own mind?

You're still missing my question which does not deal with any of this at all. Nevertheless, I shall answer this - No, Judas is held condemnable for his own negative actions - God does not coerce any man to sin.

But my question was - "Why did God still choose to create Judas and bring him into the world - when God foreknew his end would be to perish?" - and you've answered along the lines of how God endured with much longsuffering this vessel of wrath. I am asking, why was this vessel even made in the first place - when God foreknew that it would be a vessel of dishonor and its end would be it being fit for destruction?

 

[gr8grace]

If debating does not progress toward a conclusion and if intellectualism does not make it easier to understand complex truth - then such is vanity and I'd respect your decision to stay away from it. From where I stand, I can only state that I don't think that's what's been happening here.

Firstly, there is a sort of innocence thrown about doctrines that are 'simple truths'(occam's razor?) as opposed to its contrary doctrine that could make one proclaim - "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" What you see as 'simple truths' may be an oversimplification of all the factors involved wherein you might unwittingly be holding manifold contradictions too - that might be shown you only by God - perhaps through profitable 'debating'. [I was regenerated while reading an apologetic book!]


And why did God impute sin to every man? Was it because God simply wanted to - or because every man deserved it as Adam did(I believe this)? This is the crucial information I need from your end to proceed further.


Effectively, I had as much choice as Adam did - that's the doctrine of Federal headship, which I assume you concur with. And yes, we do commit sin because we are born with a sin nature.


Because? Why was God Just and Righteous in imputing the sin nature to every man - was it only to serve His future purposes OR primarily because every man deserved it as Adam did? [This is a repeat-question, only to lay focus on this]


I wouldn't say that at all. If you have conceded that God is not the cause of sin at all - then He cannot be held responsible for all the harmful effects and consequences of sin - would you agree?

And here "we're back to" my response to your first argument -
1. God 'allows access' to all
2. sin prevents man in the flesh
3. God is not the cause of sin
4. man is condemned for his own negative volition
5. the righteous Judge may or may not have mercy now.
Where is the issue here?

Point 1 is what you hold and what I concur with. Point 3 is what we've now declared we both agree upon. Point 2 is what I propose as an additional factor to your seemingly oversimplified framework of 'simple truths' - and Point 4 is a derived consequence of this Point 2. Point 5 logically follows Point 4. If you are then to have an issue with this argument, it seems to be only with Point 2 - is that so? Do you believe that man in the (sinful)flesh can obey God's will in a manner that's pleasing to Him?

Its all about point 2. All men have been imputed with this, GOD imputed it to us. No man had a Personal Choice in it. Rom 5:12 And He did it because He foreknew ALL would Sin. It is a GIFT to us that He did it this way. Since God made it this way EVERYBODY is made an object of salvation. Since He Has put everybody on the SAME level playing field.

If no man in the flesh can obey Gods will. He created all men like that, all men. Rom 5:12;Rom 5:18; Gal 3:22

And He promises All men that he will Judge with righteousness and Justice and with equity Ps 9:8;Rom 1:16-17; Ps 96:10

Then He would be unjust If just 1 man was not allowed access to John 6:40

 

[gr8grace]

Perhaps you've missed this question - your response to this would fill a huge gap in my understanding of your position.


You're still missing my question which does not deal with any of this at all. Nevertheless, I shall answer this - No, Judas is held condemnable for his own negative actions - God does not coerce any man to sin.

But my question was - "Why did God still choose to create Judas and bring him into the world - when God foreknew his end would be to perish?" - and you've answered along the lines of how God endured with much longsuffering this vessel of wrath. I am asking, why was this vessel even made in the first place - when God foreknew that it would be a vessel of dishonor and its end would be it being fit for destruction?

Judas was created and God knew that he would be a vessel of destruction. That my friend, is the Angelic conflict or the Kingdom conflict (THE MYSTERY). Eph 3:10 Satan accused God of being unfair. And He created Man as a lower creation to bring a Savior through that lower creation(and it would be Himself) to Prove to Satan that He is FAIR and willing to sacrifice Himself for His creation. And He is WILLING to Have MERCY on all, But He is JUST and righteous in that process. It is what you and I are debating. God is FAIR to ALL men with having the God given ability to reject or receive Christ. And God offered all of us HIMSELF as that sacrifice.

Christ was COMPLETELY and TOTALLY loving and willing to have Mercy on Judas his entire life knowing that Judas was not going to choose Him. But Justice through the Savior needed to be satisfied. Belief John 16:9 And the only reason God withheld his mercy is because of the ONLY reason He with holds His mercy...unbelief.

And I believe that the Holy Spirit is willing to let EVERYONE believe.

 

[Agape]

And He created Man as a lower creation to bring a Savior through that lower creation(and it would be Himself) to Prove to Satan that He is FAIR and willing to sacrifice Himself for His creation.

Prove to Satan?

 

[gr8grace]

Prove to Satan?

Show or Prove he(satan) and No one else will have an excuse. Every accusation we or satan have against God is Shown to us as completely false.

 

[ivdavid]

And why did God impute sin to every man?

He did it because He foreknew ALL would Sin.

It is a GIFT to us that He did it this way. Since God made it this way EVERYBODY is made an object of salvation. Since He Has put everybody on the SAME level playing field.

I'm sure your response makes a lot of sense to you - but try approaching it as if you're hearing this for the first time and apart from any of the other unstated beliefs that accompany and support this belief of yours.

To me, "God imputed sin to every man because He foreknew ALL would sin" is as confounding as can be. Just to help me understand, what would have been different if God had Not imputed sin to every single man - would there have been a DIFFERENT-level playing field then? If God foreknew ALL would sin, why the need to LEVEL the playing field - it is already level in that ALL are going to sin, right?

It's a GIFT? Why not Gift ALL of us natures that are not sinful? Where would the issue be there? Would that not be more Just and more righteous of God to do - instead of GIFTING us imputed sin - when all it offers by itself is condemnation? How would everyone not have been an object of salvation if they had not been Gifted this sin nature - either they wouldn't have sinned and would automatically enter His kingdom Or they would have sinned and would anyway qualify in the Same Level playing field, right?

I am asking these questions to make more sense of your position - the basic issue being why you provide a future Purpose(God's wanting to make ALL of us objects of salvation) as reason for our being born with sin natures instead of pointing to a preceding Cause?

And here "we're back to" my response to your first argument -
1. God 'allows access' to ALL [your access to John 6:40]
2. sin prevents man in the flesh

You argue against my points on the basis that God would be unjust if He provided an unbalanced playing field, right? Point 1 above states that He does provide a LEVEL playing field for ALL. The imbalance is caused/provided by sin -

If you have conceded that God is not the cause of sin at all - then He cannot be held responsible for all the harmful effects and consequences of sin - would you agree?

(If you could respond to these questions of mine in every post, we could make faster progress.) Hence, God is Not the cause of any imbalance in the playing field - hence He is not unjust according to your argument. This is what I've been trying to communicate since the first time I posted this argument - and you seem more passionate in re-stating your position while not engaging my argument.

 

[ivdavid]

Judas was created and God knew that he would be a vessel of destruction. That my friend, is the Angelic conflict or the Kingdom conflict (THE MYSTERY).

If you've ended your answer with "it's a mystery", I can accept that. You seem to go on and explain what this 'mystery' is about - namely proving to satan and ALL, God's fairness and justice. What you're saying then is that God was ready to permit many to perish(of their own accord) in the eternal lakes of fire just to prove a point to All His creation, right? I wouldn't object much to this response - I'd take it as "God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known - and be justified in His judgments". But is this what you're saying?

And the only reason God withheld his mercy is because of the ONLY reason He with holds His mercy...unbelief.

But how did these vessels of honor come to possess God's righteousness - by their positive volition, right? And what is the source of their positive volition - was it self-generated Or was it by God's mercy that worked in them through regeneration of their hearts and spirit to bring forth such positive volition that never was possible in the flesh?

If according to you, God's mercy is dependent upon man's volition, then the implication is that man's positive volition is self-generated and not worked out by God in man - right? Wouldn't that amount to self-righteousness, as infinitesimal as it may be?

And why are you making God's mercy dependent on man's willing? Doesn't that negate Rom 9:16 ?

Do you believe that man in the (sinful)flesh can obey God's will in a manner that's pleasing to Him?

From what you've written, by logical association, your answer would be Yes. Could you confirm that? And if so, could you explain away the beginning of Romans 8?

 

[ivdavid]

Satan accused God of being unfair.

And He created Man as a lower creation to bring a Savior through that lower creation(and it would be Himself) to Prove to Satan that He is FAIR and willing to sacrifice Himself for His creation.

What did satan accuse God of being unfair about - if such accusation took place before the creation of man, according to you? Or have you just wrongly worded the sequence of events in your response above?

And wasn't man created purely for God's pleasure - with the intent that His vessels of mercy be harvested together in Christ, having the knowledge of God in the spirit? Your wording above seems to imply that God created man only after satan accused Him in order to prove Himself before His creation - is that how you meant it?

 

[gr8grace]

If you've ended your answer with "it's a mystery", I can accept that. You seem to go on and explain what this 'mystery' is about - namely proving to satan and ALL, God's fairness and justice. What you're saying then is that God was ready to permit many to perish(of their own accord) in the eternal lakes of fire just to prove a point to All His creation, right? I wouldn't object much to this response - I'd take it as "God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known - and be justified in His judgments". But is this what you're saying?



If according to you, God's mercy is dependent upon man's volition, then the implication is that man's positive volition is self-generated and not worked out by God in man - right? Wouldn't that amount to self-righteousness, as infinitesimal as it may be?

And why are you making God's mercy dependent on man's willing? Doesn't that negate Rom 9:16 ?


From what you've written, by logical association, your answer would be Yes. Could you confirm that? And if so, could you explain away the beginning of Romans 8?

Ok I am going back to the conclusion.....Prove this wrong using scripture.

I gave you Rom 9:20-21 and an explanation of those verses.

So this is were you and I differ then.

If no man in the flesh can obey Gods will. He created all men like that, all men. Rom 5:12;Rom 5:18; Gal 3:22

And He promises All men that he will Judge with righteousness and Justice and with equity Ps 9:8;Rom 1:16-17; Ps 96:10

Then He would be unjust If just 1 man was not allowed access to John 6:40

I believe that ALL men have been given By God the ability to reject or to receive Jesus Christ as their Savoir. Ecclesiastes 3:11

NOT ONE verse in the Bible says He will Sovereignly Arbitrarily Choose a Man. EVERY verse in the Bible says He will Do it out of His Righteousness through Belief in His Son.

 

[ivdavid]

Ok I am going back to the conclusion.....Prove this wrong using scripture.

you seem more passionate in re-stating your position while not engaging my argument.

I do not want to sound vindicated here - I only wish to raise a valid concern over your approach to the discussion. Any doctrine must be tested for internal consistency within its own entire framework - and for external consistency with Scripture and the factual observations of the world which are undeniable and unambiguous.

So, I take up your doctrine. I ask you to clarify an internal inconsistency here -

..dishonor is possessing or depending on one’s own self-righteousness..

If according to you, God's mercy is dependent upon man's volition, then the implication is that man's positive volition is self-generated and not worked out by God in man - right? Wouldn't that amount to self-righteousness, as infinitesimal as it may be?

Point 1 - clarification sought on internal inconsistency. No response to this.

Then I take up external inconsistencies with Scripture -

Do you believe that man in the (sinful)flesh can obey God's will in a manner that's pleasing to Him?

From what you've written, by logical association, your answer would be Yes. Could you confirm that? And if so, could you explain away the beginning of Romans 8? [Rom 8:7-8]

Point 2 - clarification sought on external inconsistency with Scripture. No response to this.

And why are you making God's mercy dependent on man's willing? Doesn't that negate Rom 9:16 ?

You have given Rom 9:20-21 and an explanation of those - which do not happen to explain how "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy".
Point 3 - clarification sought on external inconsistency with Scripture. Response awaited.


Now on to my clarifying the doctrines I hold -

Then He would be unjust If just 1 man was not allowed access to John 6:40.
I believe that ALL men have been given By God the ability to reject or to receive Jesus Christ as their Savoir. Ecclesiastes 3:11

And here "we're back to" my response to your first argument -
1. God 'allows access' to ALL [your access to John 6:40 and your God-given ability to ALL]
2. sin prevents man in the flesh

You argue against my points on the basis that God would be unjust if He provided an unbalanced playing field, right? Point 1 above states that He does provide a LEVEL playing field for ALL. The imbalance is caused/provided by sin -

If you have conceded that God is not the cause of sin at all - then He cannot be held responsible for all the harmful effects and consequences of sin - would you agree?

Hence, God is Not the cause of any imbalance in the playing field - hence He is not unjust according to your argument.

Clarification provided from my end. No Counter-argument on this.

NOT ONE verse in the Bible says He will Sovereignly Arbitrarily Choose a Man.

Do you not concede that there are teachings not explicitly stated in the Bible but are nonetheless undeniably derived/inferred from it?

God's sovereign choice/election of grace apart from anything man does/works is a fact - Rom 9:11. God showing mercy upon whom He wills and not upon all is a fact - Rom 9:17-18. Whether such election and showing mercy encompass salvation too or just the presentation of the Gospel may be the point of dispute - I'd hold the former case given the context of Rom 9-11 which is salvation(Rom 9:3;10:1;11:7-8). Further discussion required on this.

EVERY verse in the Bible says He will Do it out of His Righteousness through Belief in His Son.

Where did I deny this? I never said God sovereignly shows mercy apart from faith - He shows mercy in regenerating hardened hearts and fleshly minds so that they may have faith in the spirit apart from the flesh.

Clarification given from my end. Counter-argument, if any, awaited.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If you've ended your answer with "it's a mystery", I can accept that. You seem to go on and explain what this 'mystery' is about - namely proving to satan and ALL, God's fairness and justice. What you're saying then is that God was ready to permit many to perish(of their own accord) in the eternal lakes of fire just to prove a point to All His creation, right?

You asked Jarrod a question, so I'd like to ask you one. Well, OK, a half-dozen or so. Are you willing to accept the possibility that the Holy Spirit draws all men? Are you willing to accept that He calls some men who willingly turn their hearts to at least consider the gospel? Are you willing to accept that He opens some of those hearts are guided by a mind that brushes across the concept that just maybe that gospel is truth? And that in that moment, when the mind hovers over the possibility, the Holy Spirit enables the heart/soul to grasp firmly onto that truth, accept that he/she is in fact a sinner and that Jesus Christ is the only answer to the dilemma of what can be done for salvation?

Unfortunately, I doubt that you are so willing. However, in light of the entire Scriptures, taking them all in context to one another -- in other words, without subverting or rationalizing the original languages or passages that stand in defiance of favored doctrines but being willing to examine them all in that context without prejudice -- it is impossible for a reasonable person to adopt Calvinism or Armenianism. In reality, both these great contributors to the faith were, sadly, in the end, wrong about the conclusions reached and perpetuated in their names. The truth is, neither of them believed what today passes for those doctrines. These ideas should have been buried long ago.

 

[ivdavid]

You asked Jarrod a question, so I'd like to ask you one. Well, OK, a half-dozen or so.

You can ask me as many questions as you like whether or not I question others - and I will try and answer them all as time permits.

Are you willing to accept the possibility that the Holy Spirit draws all men?

Yes, I wouldn't have an issue with this statement as it is worded. Perhaps we must dwell on how exactly we each mean it, a little later.

Are you willing to accept that He calls some men who willingly turn their hearts to at least consider the gospel?

I thought the previous questions' "drawing all men" was the very drawing to consider the Gospel - what else did God draw all men to earlier, if they were to consider the Gospel only after that?

Or is it that you hold "drawing" as just getting assembled and readied to hear the Gospel? And is it that you visualize those who hear with all their hearts, that such are then called to consider the Gospel? I would then agree with the statement as it is worded - but not with the intent it quite obviously carries.

Are you willing to accept that He opens some of those hearts are guided by a mind that brushes across the concept that just maybe that gospel is truth?

Most definitely. Though not in the way you seem to mean it.

And that in that moment, when the mind hovers over the possibility, the Holy Spirit enables the heart/soul to grasp firmly onto that truth, accept that he/she is in fact a sinner and that Jesus Christ is the only answer to the dilemma of what can be done for salvation?

Ditto. Agree with your statement, not with the theology behind it.

Unfortunately, I doubt that you are so willing.

Well, I would deem it 'fortunately' - if perhaps your theology is not the truth.

However, in light of the entire Scriptures, taking them all in context to one another -- in other words, without subverting or rationalizing the original languages or passages that stand in defiance of favored doctrines but being willing to examine them all in that context without prejudice -- it is impossible for a reasonable person to adopt Calvinism or Armenianism.

Entire Scriptures - agreed. In Context - agreed. Without prejudiced subversion or rationalization - agreed, but isn't that subjective? One could call your beliefs as the rationalized oversimplification of the truth that fails to accommodate all the factors involved - because of your prejudices. So let's not deal with subjective opinions - just the objective material is sufficient to arrive at unambiguous conclusions. And is the 'reasonable person' only the one who agrees with your reason? Subjective again - let's pass these over.

In reality, both these great contributors to the faith were, sadly, in the end, wrong about the conclusions reached and perpetuated in their names. The truth is, neither of them believed what today passes for those doctrines. These ideas should have been buried long ago.

I have stated this quite often - I am no more a calvinist or an arminian than perhaps a Newtonian - see, I knew of gravity long before I was told in a science class that it was called gravity. Similarly, I believed these doctrines long before I was told in a forum that it was called so and so and was founded by so and so. I now use these terms for reference sake - just as I use the scientific term 'gravity' that most are familiar with.

I believed these doctrines from what I was led to see in all of Scripture and in my own salvation experience - I don't think any better witness is required. I intend to discuss the difficult doctrines with honesty and with equal engagement of the other's beliefs - and I'm always hopeful of an equally reciprocative discussion.

 

[gr8grace]

I do not want to sound vindicated here - I only wish to raise a valid concern over your approach to the discussion. Any doctrine must be tested for internal consistency within its own entire framework - and for external consistency with Scripture and the factual observations of the world which are undeniable and unambiguous.

So, I take up your doctrine. I ask you to clarify an internal inconsistency here -
Point 1 - clarification sought on internal inconsistency. No response to this.

Then I take up external inconsistencies with Scripture -
Point 2 - clarification sought on external inconsistency with Scripture. No response to this.


You have given Rom 9:20-21 and an explanation of those - which do not happen to explain how "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy".
Point 3 - clarification sought on external inconsistency with Scripture. Response awaited.


Now on to my clarifying the doctrines I hold -
Clarification provided from my end. No Counter-argument on this.


Do you not concede that there are teachings not explicitly stated in the Bible but are nonetheless undeniably derived/inferred from it?

God's sovereign choice/election of grace apart from anything man does/works is a fact - Rom 9:11. God showing mercy upon whom He wills and not upon all is a fact - Rom 9:17-18. Whether such election and showing mercy encompass salvation too or just the presentation of the Gospel may be the point of dispute - I'd hold the former case given the context of Rom 9-11 which is salvation(Rom 9:3;10:1;11:7-8). Further discussion required on this.


Where did I deny this? I never said God sovereignly shows mercy apart from faith - He shows mercy in regenerating hardened hearts and fleshly minds so that they may have faith in the spirit apart from the flesh.

Clarification given from my end. Counter-argument, if any, awaited.

Hi ivdavid
I wish you could see how complex you are making this. And through all that you have written and explained And asked Questions to me. I want to stay at the CONCLUSION of what I believe and what you believe. Because it shows how complex compatibilism is compared to Grace.

This whole debate is about the very last sentence in your well thought out response. And that is were I am Going to stay.

You say," He shows mercy in regenerating hardened hearts and fleshly minds so that they MAY have faith in the spirit apart from the flesh." That is determinism. Sovereign choice. Gods Sovereignty usurps the Cross.

And I say that the Cross is the only way God will Sovereignly Choose to show Mercy. And the Cross is placed before all men and EVERY man is able to choose or reject the Lord Jesus Christ.

I say that the Spirit is willing to let ALL believe and the ONLY way He can regenerate and have mercy is Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the simplicity of the Gospel.

Therefore if God regenerates BEFORE Faith:
So this is were you and I differ then.

If no man in the flesh can obey Gods will. He created all men like that, all men. Rom 5:12;Rom 5:18; Gal 3:22

And He promises All men that he will Judge with righteousness and Justice and with equity Ps 9:8;Rom 1:16-17; Ps 96:10

Then He would be unjust If just 1 man was not allowed access to John 6:40

I believe that ALL men have been given By God the ability to reject or to receive Jesus Christ as their Savoir. Ecclesiastes 3:11

NOT ONE verse in the Bible says He will Sovereignly Arbitrarily Choose a Man. EVERY verse in the Bible says He will Do it out of His Righteousness through Belief in His Son.

 

[ivdavid]

...it shows how complex compatibilism is compared to Grace.

I don't think I'd subscribe to compatibilism(just looked it up on wikipedia) - it seems to hold that man is free to will anything at any point in time - and adds that such willing is determined. I do not hold man to be free to will anything at any point in time(specifically, he cannot will something good in the flesh because of sin in the flesh) - and I hold everything to be determined by God, either through His active causation or through passive permission. I don't know what -ism that puts me under, neither should it matter.

And why must my position be contrasted with grace - as if my position denies grace. Pit it against freewill as the term is commonly used, if you may - but why grace?

I want to stay at the CONCLUSION of what I believe and what you believe.

This is bordering on an Argumentum Ad Nauseum. Could you at least confirm if you've realized that my questions to you are not on some auxiliary peripheral points meant to detract from the main point being discussed here - that your answers to those questions could actually determine a conclusion to this main point being discussed?

For eg:
Consider my question - "If you have conceded that God is not the cause of sin at all - then He cannot be held responsible for all the harmful effects and consequences of sin - would you agree?"

If you were to answer YES to the above question - that you agreed God could not be blamed for the harmful effects/consequences of sin - then we can take up your argument and look at all that can be attributed to God to see if He's Righteous in all that He does or not.

We'd take up His provision of abilities to mankind and we'd ask if He had given man the ability to believe/obey His commandments etc. And the answer would be Yes, God has given man all the necessary abilities to obey His will. He is Righteous.

Next, we'd take up whether He has given such ability to ALL mankind or only some of them - and the answer would be Yes, God has given such ability to ALL mankind. He is still Righteous.

But when we take up the present day scenario for instance, and we check it against my assertion that man does Not have this ability now - the question must be asked as to what caused this ability to be restrained, ie what has caused this inability now. And the answer is sin in the flesh - this inability is a harmful effect/consequence of sin in the flesh.

But what is God's role/involvement in the reality of this inability now - to answer this, we'd look back to your answer(the one you never gave) - and check if you agreed with the inference that God cannot be blamed/held responsible for the harmful effects/consequence of sin - and finally conclude that God is indeed not responsible for man's inability now. Hence God is still Righteous.

Isn't your long-repeated argument refuted here? Why go on with the same declaration when a conclusion can be reached by simply engaging and responding to the points provided?

I say that the Spirit is willing to let ALL believe and the ONLY way He can regenerate and have mercy is Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the simplicity of the Gospel.

This is simply your assertion. Where does Scripture undeniably prove that God regenerates only after a person has faith in Christ - regeneration being God's work in man as seen in Eze 36:26, and not the sealing of the Holy Spirit which comes after repentance and faith(had to clarify that after a long discussion on this elsewhere).

Doesn't John 6:63-65 prove otherwise? Doesn't Eze 36:26 prove otherwise? Doesn't Rom 8:7-8 prove otherwise? That the hardened heart cannot love God, that the flesh cannot obey God, cannot be pleasing to Him, that man has to be regenerated by God's mercy through Christ Jesus in the spirit for him to be able to discern and obey spiritually? I'd even cautiously add 1 John 5:1.

As to God's mercy in regeneration - you ask how such mercy could be Righteous if it precedes faith - and I ask why not? Again, look at only what can be attributed to God -
Did He give ALL men ability to believe - yes.
Did He command them to believe - yes.
Did He, with long-suffering, exhort them to believe - yes.
God is Righteous so far.

Man chooses not to believe because of sin in the flesh. God is not the cause of sin - hence, God is not the cause of man's unbelief.
God is still Righteous.

Now ALL men stand guilty before God, having rejected His command to believe. Isn't God free to do as He wills at this point - just as a king is free to Either reserve judgment against the convicted murderer Or to show him mercy. Would a king be unrighteous if he were not to show mercy to this convicted murderer before him when he has not in any way caused that murderer's transgression?

Similarly, God wills to have mercy upon whom He wills. And such mercy is shown through regeneration and the other works of God's grace. If you are to point out unrighteousness in God here, please take up the analogy and state your case as to why the king would be deemed unrighteous if he were not to show mercy to the convicted murderer before him, whose own transgressions and consequent condemnation were not caused by the king.

Gods Sovereignty usurps the Cross.

Not so. I hold regeneration in John 3:5-6 with the same importance I hold faith in Christ in the same John 3:14-16. When undue importance is given to one, I emphasize on the other - in this case, I'm having to emphasize on regeneration. Doesn't mean I hold it as more crucial to Christ's sacrifice. Without Christ's Sacrifice, God cannot have mercy on anyone. With Christ's sacrifice, God may have mercy on whom He wills, and such mercy is shown through regeneration that leads the new inner man to repent and believe in the object of such faith - namely, Jesus Christ.

If you respond to the points raised here and elsewhere, or ask for clarifications with the intent to proceed further, I too would have the desire to continue this discussion toward a conclusion - but if you'd like to continue to ignore my points raised in relevance to the main point of discussion, and instead keep re-stating your framework of beliefs, we could politely sign off there.

 

[gr8grace]

I don't think I'd subscribe to compatibilism(just looked it up on wikipedia) - it seems to hold that man is free to will anything at any point in time - and adds that such willing is determined. I do not hold man to be free to will anything at any point in time(specifically, he cannot will something good in the flesh because of sin in the flesh) - and I hold everything to be determined by God, either through His active causation or through passive permission. I don't know what -ism that puts me under, neither should it matter.

And why must my position be contrasted with grace - as if my position denies grace. Pit it against freewill as the term is commonly used, if you may - but why grace?


This is bordering on an Argumentum Ad Nauseum. Could you at least confirm if you've realized that my questions to you are not on some auxiliary peripheral points meant to detract from the main point being discussed here - that your answers to those questions could actually determine a conclusion to this main point being discussed?

For eg:
Consider my question - "If you have conceded that God is not the cause of sin at all - then He cannot be held responsible for all the harmful effects and consequences of sin - would you agree?"

If you were to answer YES to the above question - that you agreed God could not be blamed for the harmful effects/consequences of sin - then we can take up your argument and look at all that can be attributed to God to see if He's Righteous in all that He does or not.

We'd take up His provision of abilities to mankind and we'd ask if He had given man the ability to believe/obey His commandments etc. And the answer would be Yes, God has given man all the necessary abilities to obey His will. He is Righteous.

Next, we'd take up whether He has given such ability to ALL mankind or only some of them - and the answer would be Yes, God has given such ability to ALL mankind. He is still Righteous.

But when we take up the present day scenario for instance, and we check it against my assertion that man does Not have this ability now - the question must be asked as to what caused this ability to be restrained, ie what has caused this inability now. And the answer is sin in the flesh - this inability is a harmful effect/consequence of sin in the flesh.

But what is God's role/involvement in the reality of this inability now - to answer this, we'd look back to your answer(the one you never gave) - and check if you agreed with the inference that God cannot be blamed/held responsible for the harmful effects/consequence of sin - and finally conclude that God is indeed not responsible for man's inability now. Hence God is still Righteous.

Isn't your long-repeated argument refuted here? Why go on with the same declaration when a conclusion can be reached by simply engaging and responding to the points provided?


This is simply your assertion. Where does Scripture undeniably prove that God regenerates only after a person has faith in Christ - regeneration being God's work in man as seen in Eze 36:26, and not the sealing of the Holy Spirit which comes after repentance and faith(had to clarify that after a long discussion on this elsewhere).

Doesn't John 6:63-65 prove otherwise? Doesn't Eze 36:26 prove otherwise? Doesn't Rom 8:7-8 prove otherwise? That the hardened heart cannot love God, that the flesh cannot obey God, cannot be pleasing to Him, that man has to be regenerated by God's mercy through Christ Jesus in the spirit for him to be able to discern and obey spiritually? I'd even cautiously add 1 John 5:1.

As to God's mercy in regeneration - you ask how such mercy could be Righteous if it precedes faith - and I ask why not? Again, look at only what can be attributed to God -
Did He give ALL men ability to believe - yes.
Did He command them to believe - yes.
Did He, with long-suffering, exhort them to believe - yes.
God is Righteous so far.

Man chooses not to believe because of sin in the flesh. God is not the cause of sin - hence, God is not the cause of man's unbelief.
God is still Righteous.

Now ALL men stand guilty before God, having rejected His command to believe. Isn't God free to do as He wills at this point - just as a king is free to Either reserve judgment against the convicted murderer Or to show him mercy. Would a king be unrighteous if he were not to show mercy to this convicted murderer before him when he has not in any way caused that murderer's transgression?

Similarly, God wills to have mercy upon whom He wills. And such mercy is shown through regeneration and the other works of God's grace. If you are to point out unrighteousness in God here, please take up the analogy and state your case as to why the king would be deemed unrighteous if he were not to show mercy to the convicted murderer before him, whose own transgressions and consequent condemnation were not caused by the king.


Not so. I hold regeneration in John 3:5-6 with the same importance I hold faith in Christ in the same John 3:14-16. When undue importance is given to one, I emphasize on the other - in this case, I'm having to emphasize on regeneration. Doesn't mean I hold it as more crucial to Christ's sacrifice. Without Christ's Sacrifice, God cannot have mercy on anyone. With Christ's sacrifice, God may have mercy on whom He wills, and such mercy is shown through regeneration that leads the new inner man to repent and believe in the object of such faith - namely, Jesus Christ.

If you respond to the points raised here and elsewhere, or ask for clarifications with the intent to proceed further, I too would have the desire to continue this discussion toward a conclusion - but if you'd like to continue to ignore my points raised in relevance to the main point of discussion, and instead keep re-stating your framework of beliefs, we could politely sign off there.

Hi ivdavid,

I know that it is frustrating, but I will not stray from the Crux of the problem. And I have answered your question on Sin. and every time I post the conclusion to what you and I are discussing your SIN question is answered but you don't see it because you hold to the point of..... man in the flesh can not choose God.

Adam Sinned, because Adam sinned God caused ALL men to be Born in unbelief we had NO choice in the matter. Rom 5:12;Rom 5:18;Gal 3:22. He righteously condemned us.

Adams Sin was imputed by God to ALL men. (which is a gift to us) Rom 11:32 For God has consigned ALL to Disobedience, that He may Have Mercy on ALL.

Therefore if He offers salvation to Men and He has placed ALL men in unbelief and He promises to judge in righteousness He would be UNJUST if ALL men did NOT have the opportunity and ability to believe. John 3:18

This discussion is not just for your questions to me And what you want from me. I cannot go further because this has not been cleared up for me.

This is what I see you telling me. God demands only blue eyed people can be saved, and because I was born with brown eyes and had NO way of changing my eye color, He righteously throws me in hell for my brown eyes.

 

[Mitspa]

Been looking for the issue? Sin is in the flesh its not a "imputed" is real! That no man, no matter how religious he is can please God. This is the core of all truth as it relates to the gospel. If one does not accept the wretched condition of the flesh, he will not accept the purpose of the Cross. These are those who Paul called the enemies of the Cross. whoes god is their own belly, and glory in their own shame. Who mind earthly things.

One who will not admit that sin dwells in thier flesh, has rejected the message of The Cross.

 

[gr8grace]

Been looking for the issue? Sin is in the flesh its not a "imputed" is real! That no man, no matter how religious he is can please God. This is the core of all truth as it relates to the gospel. If one does not accept the wretched condition of the flesh, he will not accept the purpose of the Cross. These are those who Paul called the enemies of the Cross. whoes god is their own belly, and glory in their own shame. Who mind earthly things.

One who will not admit that sin dwells in thier flesh, has rejected the message of The Cross.

Sin dwells in your WHOLE being Mitspa, not just in your flesh! And when you believe, the Spirit comes to Dwell in you and makes you a New creature. That is a simple christian tenant. Eph 1:13-14

And if it was NOT imputed to you, give me ONE scripture that says otherwise.

If we start out justified and then sin. Are you telling me that, just maybe,just maybe we can make it through this life perfect?

 

[ivdavid]

Consider my question - "If you have conceded that God is not the cause of sin at all - then He cannot be held responsible for all the harmful effects and consequences of sin - would you agree?"

And I have answered your question on Sin.

If you could point out where exactly you've answered this, I'd retract my implying otherwise with an apology.

And I guess entire arguments don't work here. Let's try them one at a time to resolve the CRUX of the issue.

because Adam sinned God caused ALL men to be Born in unbelief

Why? Is it a Just and Righteous act of God? When ALL of us are condemned for Adam's sin, is this not upholding Eze 18:2 which ought not to be upheld?

And does God cause unbelief in man at any point in time? Please start your response with a simple Yes/No before continuing with the explanation/clarification, so as to maintain clarity.