The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

[childeye]

,

Of course. Sin begins wherever God does not sustain and preserve by His own holy nature. I was simply referring to mankind alone in my earlier post - that was not intended to say that sin began with Adam.

These are the earnest questions I've had -
1. If the Garden of Eden was a "Test" of man's freewilled choice, as some people believe, how is it that these same freewilled creatures who have never once passed a day without sinning, suddenly cease to sin forever in the eternal Kingdom of God? Do they lose their freewill once they are resurrected? If not, how is there the guarantee that not even one can sin even once there?
2. If this guarantee of holy perfection is given by God working in us in the spirit, in the absence of our sinful flesh, then why did not God create us so in the first place itself? Why that sequence in 1Cor 15:46 ?
3. If satan/lucifer was already puffed up with self-pride, why was he not thrown into the eternal lakes of fire before he could tempt Eve?
4. Why wasn't he thrown immediately after tempting her either?

Once again, these are not questions doubting God's ways - rather to understand the glorious purpose behind His ways.

If I have to answer my own questions -
1. The Garden of Eden was not a "Test" so much as it was a Lesson to us to show how we inevitably fall apart from God working in us to will and do according to His own pleasure(Php 2:13). He shows us the difference between the flesh that is brought into bondage by Sin that overwhelms it(2Pet 2:19), and the spirit that is led by God Himself(Rom 8:14).

2. We were sown in corruption so that we can be raised in incorruption(1Cor 15:42) - for God must necessarily condemn Sin in the nature it is committed, which is why Christ had to come and die in the flesh for us(Rom 8:3) - hence the flesh stands condemned and cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. And we are raised in the spirit by the power of the Holy Spirit(Rom 8:11). I assume the elect angels(1Tim 5:21) which are ministering spirits wouldn't know about God's glory in this wonderful redemption from sinful flesh unless they learn looking at God working in man(1Pet 1:12) - just as we might not have known if we had been created in the spirit.

3. While satan already sinned in his heart, God concludes all under sin manifested in their works, leaving none any excuse to find fault with His judgements(Psa 51:4).

4. God purposed Judgement Day to happen later, which cannot be thwarted with the perishing of mankind there in the Garden - God doesn't pull up the wheat with the tares(Matt 13:29).

In conclusion, I believe God is contrasting our failure in our own decisions in the flesh against the glory of His decisions in the spirit, showing forth His glory in us.

I think you have had many conversations with yourself (via the Holy Spirit). Your questions are well pointed and addressing the substantive issues.

For what it's worth, your answers 1 and 2 are thorough explanations that are right on as to God's purpose and . I wish 3 would have revealed more about how what happened to Satan relates to what happens in all of us. So that it is a lesson of how to avoid it, rather than someone, (not you), thinking it simply happened because Lucifer chose to become Satan.

Overall, I somehow feel I owe you an apology. I had forgotten how enlightened you are which is evident in my feeling the need to prompt your response in this post. Your answering your own questions is a good technique to avoid miscommunication, and I enjoyed that also.

So, I'm sorry I made you contemplate all of time and space, heaven, earth and hell, God, angels and men, and place it in one short post, just to placate any doubts I may have had about where you were coming from. But then again, I appreciate the effort it took to explain the big picture in so few words. My conclusion is all happens and exists so that all of creation may experience and know God through experiencing and knowing the absence of God. Keep doing what you do ivdavid.

 

[childeye]

Do you see this as an act of free will?

Genesis 25:29 And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint:

30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I amfaint: therefore was his name called Edom.

31 And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.

32 And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?

33 And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.

34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

tob

I see Esau's despising of his birthright, as caring more about his hunger at the moment, than any worth attributed to his birthright that was yet unseen and unrealized. Please pardon the semantics, but Esau was carnally motivated, while Jacob was spiritually motivated. To establish free will, it must be shown that Esau could have chosen to be spiritually motivated and treasure his birthright over a bowl of lentils. But his words bely that.

This however is not the end of it. For when Jacob returned, he gave Esau all that he had gained from the birthright, including himself as Esau's servant. Genesis 32:18. Hence it could be argued that Esau made out better through his brother obtaining the birthright than he would have done for himself had he kept it. I therefore don't see freewill here, as in self determination and autonomy, but rather God's hand triumphant over all things. Romans 9:11-13,

11 (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Malachi 1:2
I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith theLord: yet I loved Jacob,

 

[MarkT]

Certain reformed doctrines are still intensely debated - and given the number of locked threads concerning these, I hope we could focus our discussion on simply the roots of the issues. For eg: instead of discussing Unconditional Election as such, we could try more specifically discussing if God is indeed partial or not, as the doctrine seemingly implies - and instead of discussing Total Depravity as a whole, we could discuss if God commands the impossible of man and still holds him responsible for failure or not. For it's not the reformed doctrines themselves that are problematic but rather the character of God that these paint - we could try discussing if and where we differ on the very attributes of God to clear up possible misconceptions on either side.

If I may, I'd like to start with the attributes of God as seen in reference to Gal 3.
Gal 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

This is referring to God's promise to Abraham - "In you shall all the nations be blessed" (Gen 12:3, Gal 3:8). And the law is said to annul this promised blessing because of the curse it effects on all (Gal 3:10). And Christ upholds the promise by redeeming us from the curse (Gal 3:13-14

Sorry you lost me.The passage states the law does not annul the promise.

Neither can the blessing to the children of Abraham come by means of the law since that would then violate the promise (Gal 3:18) - which we know the law does not and cannot do, since the law was never meant to give life (Gal 3:21).

I think you mean it would make the promise void.

The first point I'd like to discuss over is - Is God fair or unfair in holding people to the curse of a law that was never meant to be a provision of life? Is it acceptable to command man to obey the law and judge him for not doing so, while knowing fully the inevitable intended outcome is that of disobedience?

It's not a question of fairness. The law is quite clear; those who do such things shall die. Scoffers and the ungodly know what the law says; they don't care.

 

[Deborah13]

Yes, I believe this. And as I said above, repentance and faith go together - so while I do see what you're getting at, I just think it's not quite conclusive from the passage you quoted. You might have mistakenly read Christ into Elijah's prophecy in Matthew 3:3 - while it actually refers to John himself(John 1:23).

ivdavid , you are truly a gentleman. You are very correct, I had that all mixed up. You attempted to gently and politely correct me and I didn't understand. So you sent me a PM.
Thank for the correction and your gentle spirit.
God Bless

 

[MarkT]

The way this question is worded should be modified to better reflect what was actually in the Law of Moses.

1. God tells Israel that the provision of life is in loving Him and that "HE IS THY LIFE" (Deut 30:19,20). This is exactly what the New Testament teaches, i.e. that Christ is our Life and our Eternal Life.
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

2. All the curses are for those who do not meet God's reasonable expectations (Deut 27:9-26). You will not find a single unreasonable expectation.

That is a completely incorrect conclusion. Since God gave men a conscience, human beings are capable of following the dictates of their consciences (Rom 2:12-16):
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

The Reformed doctrine of "Total Depravity" is without any merit, but because it must support certain other erroneous assumptions, it is taken as true when it is false. The truth is that even though all human beings are born in sin and shapen in iniquity (a) they all have a conscience, (b) they all can and do exercise their consciences, (c) they all can respond to the Gospel because it is the power of God unto salvation, and (d) they all can respond to the voice of the Holy Spirit when they are convicted of their need for the Savior. If this were not true, then we would not have this Scripture (Acts 17:30): And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: How could God command something which was impossible for all men everywhere? That would certainly make Him unrighteous, and God is absolutely righteous.

I don't know if my understanding of total depravity is what is being taught, but if it means God has consigned all men to disobedience, then I can't argue with that.
Romans 11:32
For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.

Psalm 14:3
They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.

Psalm 53:3
They have all fallen away; they are all alike depraved; there is none that does good, no, not one.

Romans 3:12
All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.”

If this is what is being taught then I agree. All men, Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin. Ro. 3:9

John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

So is the commandment to repent unjust? Is it impossible to repent? No. But Jesus is stating a fact. The Father who sent Jesus draws men to Jesus. Belief is not an exercise in freewill. Belief is the work of God.

John 6:28
Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
John 6:29
Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

 

[turnorburn]

I see Esau's despising of his birthright, as caring more about his hunger at the moment, than any worth attributed to his birthright that was yet unseen and unrealized. Please pardon the semantics, but Esau was carnally motivated, while Jacob was spiritually motivated. To establish free will, it must be shown that Esau could have chosen to be spiritually motivated and treasure his birthright over a bowl of lentils. But his words bely that.

This however is not the end of it. For when Jacob returned, he gave Esau all that he had gained from the birthright, including himself as Esau's servant. Genesis 32:18. Hence it could be argued that Esau made out better through his brother obtaining the birthright than he would have done for himself had he kept it. I therefore don't see freewill here, as in self determination and autonomy, but rather God's hand triumphant over all things. Romans 9:11-13,

11 (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Malachi 1:2
I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith theLord: yet I loved Jacob,

These boys knew what day it was they were Hebrews Gods chosen people, listen to the voice of Esau...

Genesis 26:34 And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father.

35 And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.

36 And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?

37 And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?

38 And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.

tob

 

[ivdavid]

I wish 3 would have revealed more about how what happened to Satan relates to what happens in all of us.

Ah, the question - What made the devil, the devil. The answer C.S.Lewis saw from Scripture was the Great Sin. That's what he titled a chapter in his book, Mere Christianity - the very chapter I was reading when I was converted - on the sin of Self-Pride.

For what sin did satan really commit in the beginning - and what serpent tempted him to? No, this was a sin that began from within himself - that of Self-Pride (Eze 28:15,17) - what you refer to as vanity. While Pride needs an audience, Self-Pride requires only the Self. While the sin of murder requires a victim, the sin of Self-Pride needs no other. And any, I mean any, creature that is created good with an autonomous Self nature will eventually inevitably fall into this sin. Which is why we are to deny Self and rest on Christ alone. But how do we deny the Self by using the power of the Self itself - which is why God regenerates us into a nature that God Himself works in(Php 2:13, Eph 2:10) - and by the power of God we deny the Self. Now, our personal identity "I" is no longer the Self "I", but Christ in me (Gal 2:20 , 1Cor 15:10).

My conclusion is all happens and exists so that all of creation may experience and know God through experiencing and knowing the absence of God.

Exactly. God contrasts the flesh, that denotes the failures of our Self - with the spirit, that denotes God's glory in His upholding all things good. The emphasis on man's freewill and synergism in salvation is yet another deception of the Self to remain alive and not be mortified by the Spirit - but it is God who makes us all stand(Rom 14:4).

 

[ivdavid]

If this is what is being taught then I agree. All men, Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin. Ro. 3:9

Belief is not an exercise in freewill. Belief is the work of God.

I understand how you mean it and I agree with that. It's just that semantics plays a role as well - to hear you say that belief is not an exercise in freewill could be understood as man being forced into believing, which is not the case either. I'd say belief is an exercise of our will, that is bound to the working of God's will.

 

[ivdavid]

If it hadn't been for the Holy Spirit they never would have believed....But that doesn't mean He doesn't allow man to resist the Holy Spirit.

See, my position permits me to agree with your above statements. I too believe God allows man to resist the Holy Spirit - but I qualify man here as one in the flesh. God does allow man to resist the Holy Spirit in the flesh - to conclude man in the flesh under sin, with no excuse against God's righteous Judgement(Rom 3:19,4), now that he has evidenced his love for darkness by hating the light(John 3:19-20) - and to be saved by God's mercy(grace) alone(Rom 9:16). And this mercy works in regenerating this man in the spirit, no longer in the flesh - and now this same man embraces the things of the Holy Spirit. If you're following my conversation with childeye, it's to contrast the weakness of the flesh/Self-nature with the power in the spirit worked upon by God.

In the context of conversion, you would have to either believe that man obeys the Gospel in the flesh, or that he's regenerated in the spirit so he can obey. The former denies Scripture(Rom 8:7-8) and the latter is in harmony with Scripture - what other associated point is deterring you from accepting this? Do you find God to be presented unrighteous or unjust anywhere in that post181? Obviously, you find something unacceptable elsewhere consequent to you accepting this here - we could honestly discuss those other implications if you'd like to.

God offers a gift and there is boasting in taking the gift that is freely given? How does one boast in a gift given that is totally undeserved?

I do not remember myself making this argument here - but now that it's been raised, we might as well discuss it. I do not myself say that some believers actually boast in accepting this gift - rather, it's the possibility of glorying in one's own creditable good action that we seek to deny the flesh of(1Cor 1:29). Glory is attributed in proportionate measure to all those contributing to a good final result. In case of man's salvation, if God has completed 99.9% of all that is to be done, and man is expected to fulfill/contribute a mere 0.1% - God gets 99.9% of the glory but man still is due his 0.1% glory. And this is still synergism which denies ALL glory to God alone. This is what the monergistic doctrines seek to avoid - by saying that God does all 100% of the salvation work, not depending at all on man's slightest contribution. Note, the inverse is logically not true - that God does all 100% of the reprobation work, not depending on man's contributions. Here, it is man alone who is 100% responsible for his own state of condemnation.

Man in the flesh is also denied opportunity to glory in the fact that he chose to obey while another rejected the Gospel. There is no one better than the other(Rom 3:9). Then how does the difference arise in their response to the Gospel - if there is no difference in their inherent nature/character? The answer is necessarily then God's working in some and not the others, according to His election of grace, as affirmed in John 6:65 and 2Cor 4:6. If you want me to defend these texts according to my interpretation, I shall do so in a subsequent post.

 

[Chopper]

Agreed.

Nope, David, Isaiah, Elijah, and John were all individual prophets of God who all spoke of and pointed the way to the coming Redeemer.

Why did they believe? Did they somehow just believe all on their own? Or was it the Word of God spoke under the influence of the Holy Spirit and the conviction applied by the Holy Spirit? If it hadn't been for the Holy Spirit they never would have believed.
Salvation is the work of God in us that believe. But that doesn't mean He doesn't allow man to resist the Holy Spirit.

God offers a gift and there is boasting in taking the gift that is freely given? How does one boast in a gift given that is totally undeserved? It would be different if one had earned it, but then it isn't a gift at all, is it? That would be wages earned, not a gift.

I like that Deb.

 

[MarkT]

I understand how you mean it and I agree with that. It's just that semantics plays a role as well - to hear you say that belief is not an exercise in freewill could be understood as man being forced into believing, which is not the case either. I'd say belief is an exercise of our will, that is bound to the working of God's will.

What does freewill have to do with believing or not believing anything? Hearing and seeing is why we believe, and this is because we are the Lord's sheep and the Lord said, 'In that day the deaf shall hear the words of a book, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see'. Isaiah 29:18 So it has come to pass as the Lord said. So our master calls us and he leads us to pasture.

This is not a partnership where God needs our approval.

Either a man has a believing heart and a spirit of understanding or he doesn't. Either he believes or he doesn't. A man believes what he has heard and so he is saved.
Romans 10:10
For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.

So does a man believe with his will? No. A man believes with his heart.

A good tree bears good fruit; in this case the fruit of the tree is belief. So if the tree is good, it will bear good fruit; if it is bad, it will bear bad fruit.
Matthew 12:33
“Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.

 

[childeye]

These boys knew what day it was they were Hebrews Gods chosen people, listen to the voice of Esau...

Genesis 26:34 And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father.

35 And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.

36 And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?

37 And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?

38 And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.

tob

When I hear Esau's voice above, it is clear he laments deeply about first losing his birthright and then also not obtaining his Father's blessing. I'm not sure what your point is however. I have already shown scripture saying that such things were meant to be according to election and not works. Romans 9:11-13.

And I also have already produced evidence suggesting that Esau did better for himself through God's election process, than had Esau not lost his birthright and his Father's blessing. Moreover, as pertains to freewill, this lamenting of things that are past and unalterable wouldn't even be applicable. So what if he now wishes he had not been supplanted, it doesn't change the fact that when it mattered he despised his birthright.

 

[childeye]

What does freewill have to do with believing or not believing anything? Hearing and seeing is why we believe, and this is because we are the Lord's sheep and the Lord said, 'In that day the deaf shall hear the words of a book, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see'. Isaiah 29:18 So it has come to pass as the Lord said. So our master calls us and he leads us to pasture.

This is not a partnership where God needs our approval.

Either a man has a believing heart and a spirit of understanding or he doesn't. Either he believes or he doesn't. A man believes what he has heard and so he is saved.
Romans 10:10
For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.

So does a man believe with his will? No. A man believes with his heart.

A good tree bears good fruit; in this case the fruit of the tree is belief. So if the tree is good, it will bear good fruit; if it is bad, it will bear bad fruit.
Matthew 12:33
“Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.

You make good points. So why do you think freewill matters to some people? I earlier posted what the Arminians said was the issue and no one wants to discuss it. I'll post it again.

I put forth this issue as the issue, because this is what Arminians such as Roger Olson of the society of Evangelical Arminians has said is the issue, and I quote, "Real Arminianism has always believed in human freedom for one main reason—to protect the goodness of God and thus God’s reputation in a world filled with evil. There is only one reason classical Arminian theology emphasizes free will, but it has two sides. First, to protect and defend God’s goodness; second to make clear human responsibility for sin and evil."

I have a few things to say about this. What if sin comes from vanity and not freewill? If this is the case, then no one is to blame, since vanity is a circumstance of being a created being. Romans 8:20. Another way to look at it is, what if freewill is vanity?

 

[childeye]

For what sin did satan really commit in the beginning - and what serpent tempted him to? No, this was a sin that began from within himself - that of Self-Pride (Eze 28:15,17) - what you refer to as vanity.

And any, I mean any, creature that is created good with an autonomous Self nature will eventually inevitably fall into this sin. Which is why we are to deny Self and rest on Christ alone.

The emphasis on man's freewill and synergism in salvation is yet another deception of the Self to remain alive and not be mortified by the Spirit - but it is God who makes us all stand(Rom 14:4).

What if freewill is vanity?

 

[Deborah13]

I have a few things to say about this. What if sin comes from vanity and not freewill? If this is the case, then no one is to blame, since vanity is a circumstance of being a created being. Romans 8:20. Another way to look at it is, what if freewill is vanity?

What these verses are referring to have not been agreed upon in the past. Here Clarke refers to Lightfoot's writings. Maybe they will be helpful to you. However, I don't think they let man off the hook at all, per Romans 1.
Adam Clarke's Commentary
Dr. Lightfoot’s mode of explanation appears to me to be the best, on the whole. “There is,” says he, “a twofold key hanging at this place, which may unlock the whole, and make the sense plain and easy.
1. The first is the phrase, πασα ἡ κτισις, which we render the whole creation, Rom_8:22, and with which we meet twice elsewhere in the New Testament. Mar_16:15 : Preach the Gospel, πασῃ τῃ κτισει, to every creature; and Col_1:23 : The Gospel was preached, εν πασῃ τῃ κτισει, to every creature. Now it is sufficiently apparent what is meant by πασα κτισις in both these places, viz. all nations, or the heathen world. For that which in St. Mark is, preach the Gospel to every creature, is, in St. Matthew, go and teach, παντα τα εθνη, all nations. And this very phrase in this place lays claim to that very interpretation. And the Hebrew כל הבריות col habberioth, which answers to the Greek πασα ἡ κτισις, every creature, is applied by the Jews to the Gentiles, and that by way of opposition to Israel.
2. The second key is the word ματαιοτητι, Rom_8:20, which is not unfitly rendered vanity; but then this vanity is improperly applied to the vanishing, dying, changing state of the creation. For ματαιοτης, vanity, does not so much denote the vanishing condition of the outward state, as it does the inward vanity or emptiness of the mind. So the apostle, speaking of the Gentiles concerning whom he speaks here, tells us εματαιωθησαν, They became vain in their imaginations, Rom_1:21; and again, The Gentiles walk εν ματαιοτητι, in the vanity of their mind, Eph_4:17; so also, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, ὁτι εισι ματαιοι, that they are vain, 1Co_3:20. To all which let me add this farther observation, that throughout this whole place the apostle seems to allude to the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and their deliverance from it; with a comparison made betwixt the Jewish and the Gentile Church. When God would deliver Israel from his bondage, he challenges him for his Son, and his first-born, Exo_4:22. And in like manner the Gentiles earnestly expect and wait for such a kind of manifestation of the sons of God, within and among themselves. The Romans, to whom the apostle writes, knew well how many predictions and promises it had pleased God to publish by his prophets, concerning gathering together and adopting sons to himself among the Gentiles; the manifestation of which sons the whole Gentile world with a neck as it were stretched out, as the word αποκαραδοκια implies, (απο, from, and καρα, the head, and δοκαω, to expect), doth now wait for.” See the observations at the end of this chapter, (Rom_8:39 (note)).

 

[turnorburn]

When I hear Esau's voice above, it is clear he laments deeply about first losing his birthright and then also not obtaining his Father's blessing. I'm not sure what your point is however. I have already shown scripture saying that such things were meant to be according to election and not works. Romans 9:11-13.

And I also have already produced evidence suggesting that Esau did better for himself through God's election process, than had Esau not lost his birthright and his Father's blessing. Moreover, as pertains to freewill, this lamenting of things that are past and unalterable wouldn't even be applicable. So what if he now wishes he had not been supplanted, it doesn't change the fact that when it mattered he despised his birthright.

No, it doesn't change the fact he made a free will choice..

tob

 

[childeye]

What these verses are referring to have not been agreed upon in the past. Here Clarke refers to Lightfoot's writings. Maybe they will be helpful to you. However, I don't think they let man off the hook at all, per Romans 1.
Adam Clarke's Commentary
Dr. Lightfoot’s mode of explanation appears to me to be the best, on the whole. “There is,” says he, “a twofold key hanging at this place, which may unlock the whole, and make the sense plain and easy.
1. The first is the phrase, πασα ἡ κτισις, which we render the whole creation, Rom_8:22, and with which we meet twice elsewhere in the New Testament. Mar_16:15 : Preach the Gospel, πασῃ τῃ κτισει, to every creature; and Col_1:23 : The Gospel was preached, εν πασῃ τῃ κτισει, to every creature. Now it is sufficiently apparent what is meant by πασα κτισις in both these places, viz. all nations, or the heathen world. For that which in St. Mark is, preach the Gospel to every creature, is, in St. Matthew, go and teach, παντα τα εθνη, all nations. And this very phrase in this place lays claim to that very interpretation. And the Hebrew כל הבריות col habberioth, which answers to the Greek πασα ἡ κτισις, every creature, is applied by the Jews to the Gentiles, and that by way of opposition to Israel.
2. The second key is the word ματαιοτητι, Rom_8:20, which is not unfitly rendered vanity; but then this vanity is improperly applied to the vanishing, dying, changing state of the creation. For ματαιοτης, vanity, does not so much denote the vanishing condition of the outward state, as it does the inward vanity or emptiness of the mind. So the apostle, speaking of the Gentiles concerning whom he speaks here, tells us εματαιωθησαν, They became vain in their imaginations, Rom_1:21; and again, The Gentiles walk εν ματαιοτητι, in the vanity of their mind, Eph_4:17; so also, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, ὁτι εισι ματαιοι, that they are vain, 1Co_3:20.

To all which let me add this farther observation, that throughout this whole place the apostle seems to allude to the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and their deliverance from it; with a comparison made betwixt the Jewish and the Gentile Church. When God would deliver Israel from his bondage, he challenges him for his Son, and his first-born, Exo_4:22. And in like manner the Gentiles earnestly expect and wait for such a kind of manifestation of the sons of God, within and among themselves. The Romans, to whom the apostle writes, knew well how many predictions and promises it had pleased God to publish by his prophets, concerning gathering together and adopting sons to himself among the Gentiles; the manifestation of which sons the whole Gentile world with a neck as it were stretched out, as the word αποκαραδοκια implies, (απο, from, and καρα, the head, and δοκαω, to expect), doth now wait for.” See the observations at the end of this chapter, (Rom_8:39 (note)).

I don't see why I would disagree with Adam Clarkes commentary. I also can appreciate your observation and find it interesting. However when I read your application of bondage and looking for deliverance, I can't help but think of Romans 1 and how men were sold to sin as per Romans 1:24. I would also add that scripture says that God made Pharaoh for this purpose. Romans 9:17.

However, I don't think they let man off the hook at all, per Romans 1.

Deborah 13. I am going to write how I interpret Romans 1. When I read Romans 1: 20 "for they are without excuse", I find it being applied so as to say they are without excuse for thinking they create themselves, as in taking God's attributes for granted in vanity. Hence un-thankfulness precedes becoming vain in the imagination. Romans 1:21. They imagine themselves wise in vanity rather than thank God for wisdom in due humility.

The problem with blame, is I don't think someone can be thankful because they choose to be. Thankfulness when sincere is not voluntary, for it requires a realization of what the worth of God is, so that He is properly esteemed and not simply patronized which is also vanity. So the fact that God is taken for granted does make God angry since it ultimately ends in wickedness, which is finding fault where no fault exists. It too is imagined by a corrupt sense of judgment due to vanity.

Semantics become a problem since it is fault to find fault where no fault exists, which is finding fault with those who find fault where none exists. Sin is added to sin because of vanity. God is not trying to find fault with us, but is angry that we find fault in ourselves and others. See how after our eating of the knowledge of good and evil that we saw we were naked and were ashamed. I believe that this knowledge was the beginning of vanity in mankind.

So does this make God's wrath unjustified when a person can't be blamed for what they don't realize? I think God's wrath is necessary not for reason of justifying blame, but for teaching a lesson that doesn't have any other motive to be learned. Hence His wrath is against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the Truth in unrighteousness. That Truth being that God makes a man good and He is our righteousness and goodness even as he is our Creator.

If we think we choose to be righteous via the knowledge of good and evil, then we discount God as our righteousness. What I see Paul doing in Romans 1, is explaining the cause and reason behind why mankind becomes sold to sin. That reason being so as to learn that we don't choose to be righteous of our own volition which is vanity. Consequently he concludes with Romans 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest, doest the same things. So are we blameless? Only when we don't blame. The reason why there is no excuse to blame others, becomes the same reason why there is no excuse for taking God for granted.

 

[childeye]

No, it doesn't change the fact he made a free will choice..

tob

Exactly how does one freely choose to despise their birthright? Wouldn't they first have to have the suitable predisposition?

 

[ivdavid]

What if sin comes from vanity and not freewill? If this is the case, then no one is to blame, since vanity is a circumstance of being a created being.

Firstly, I need some clarity in semantics. I understand the word "blame" being used in 2 distinct ways -
Blame(1) - To accuse and condemn a person for their actions(John 8:10), as if to self-righteously expect them to have done otherwise.
Blame(2) - To place responsibility over a person for the final result, while still conceding they were powerless to change the outcome.

Eg: I do not blame(1) my subordinate for losing company money to a thief, while I do accept blame(2) myself for the loss of the money that I was given charge over.

Now, if the company laws stated that anyone responsible for the loss of any money must leave the company within a week of non-return of that amount - then I hold myself responsible(blame2) under this law and will have to resign within a week if I don't repay it. If I do not hold myself responsible(blame2), then the company director will not blame(1) me but will still execute the law and fire me after the week.

So when you say, "no one is to blame" - i read it as blame(1) while it just as easily could be read as blame(2) - which I believe would hold God as unjust when He judges us while no one is to blame(2).

Before,when I did believe in freewill, I held myself and others responsible for sin.

I do believe we are still responsible for sin, not in the sense of blame(1), but in the sense of blame(2).

So the fact that God is taken for granted does make God angry since it ultimately ends in wickedness, which is finding fault where no fault exists.

Are you saying that "wickedness" is limited to just blaming(1) others? Is it that in your ardent zeal never to blame(1) others or yourself, which is good, that you're over-correcting and not acknowledging blame(2) at all for any actions of ours? Supposing there is just one man on an island where he has nobody else to blame, and he very vainly and openly denies God's glory but without blaming himself for it either - what is God's wrath poured upon him for, if he himself has not faulted in finding any fault anywhere?

So are we blameless? Only when we don't blame.

Again, I don't understand your connection between our sinful acts and our blaming - if I murdered without placing guilt on myself nor blamed anyone else for their murdering others, am I blameless before God? It seems as if you are presuming you're talking only to the person in Christ, already with a new heart and spirit, that will be led to think this way. What of the person yet in the flesh - this doctrine would be the perfect excuse for him to absolve himself of his human responsibility, and continue delighting in his sins without guilt.

So does this make God's wrath unjustified when a person can't be blamed for what they don't realize?

Why can't a person be blamed(2) for doing wrong even if they don't realize it at the time? Eventually, all shall come to light and all shall realize and each shall bear their iniquity(Lev 5:17).

After I learned that men are slaves of sin, I eventually began forgiving others their sins and as I did, I became less sinful and less guilty. I now forgive all people for all things and I am free of sin and guilt.

I am stating what this appears as and not what I believe it to be - but from what you've written, you seem to have set up your own Law of works - where you believe one is blameless as long as they don't blame - and you justify yourself according to that Law, freeing yourself from sin and guilt by forgiving others their sins. Where is Christ's sacrifice in this redemption from sin and guilt? One does not become less sinful or less guilty or more free by what they do - we bear all our iniquities ourselves and in that we lose the right to blame any other. And it is because we realize our guilt and bear our iniquities(blame2) that we run to the cross to confess and have our sins atoned. Therein, having our consciences cleansed of guilt and having the love of God shed abroad in our hearts, we are able to forgive others. And not the other way round where forgiving others cleanses us of guilt.

 

[MarkT]

You make good points. So why do you think freewill matters to some people? I earlier posted what the Arminians said was the issue and no one wants to discuss it. I'll post it again.

I put forth this issue as the issue, because this is what Arminians such as Roger Olson of the society of Evangelical Arminians has said is the issue, and I quote, "Real Arminianism has always believed in human freedom for one main reason—to protect the goodness of God and thus God’s reputation in a world filled with evil. There is only one reason classical Arminian theology emphasizes free will, but it has two sides. First, to protect and defend God’s goodness; second to make clear human responsibility for sin and evil."

I have a few things to say about this. What if sin comes from vanity and not freewill? If this is the case, then no one is to blame, since vanity is a circumstance of being a created being. Romans 8:20. Another way to look at it is, what if freewill is vanity?

I don't know. Freewill usually means voluntary in the sense that something is done voluntarily and it usually involves an offering as in a freewill offering. 2 Cor. 8:3 Phil. 1:14 in the same sense as Lev. 22:18 So what is a freewill choice? What is a freewill belief? What does having freewill mean? Salvation on a voluntary basis?

Now you mention vanity which I will interpret as self importance or arrogance, and we know the LORD hates arrogance. The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate. Proverbs 8:13

If any one thinks they are important, let them humble themselves before the Lord. “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” James 4:6 Humble yourselves before the Lord and he will exalt you. James 4:10

2 Kings 19:28
Because you have raged against me and your arrogance has come into my ears, I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth, and I will turn you back on the way by which you came.
(Edited, Tos 2.4 Obadiah)