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.
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. I'm speaking primarily of blame (1). But blame (2) still would qualify as per Romans 8:20. The thing about 8:20 is God subjects the creation to vanity so as to subject it to hope. Since hope is a good thing, I don't think blaming God for hope makes much sense.
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).
I get where you're coming from ivdavid. But what I am trying with some difficulty to describe, is a scenario where no one is to blame so long as they don't blame. Note that you say that God would be unjust when he judges if no one is to blame (2). This is consistent with Romans 3: 5-6. But this is God's judgment too, Matthew 7:1-2.
I do believe we are still responsible for sin, not in the sense of blame(1), but in the sense of blame(2).
Again semantics will be a problem regardless of the distinction you have provided. So I would ask you how you would apply this to Luke 7:47. Those who are forgiven much love much, while those who are forgiven little, love little. Does something good or not good come out of blame (1), in this scenario? Is blame (2) applicable?
Are you saying that "wickedness" is limited to just blaming(1) others?
I'm saying wickedness consistently finds ways to accuse others, while reasons to excuse seem to be unlooked for, even because I believe there is a process of reasoning whereby a person feels lifted up through criticizing others. What else is wickedness? Probably caring for your self over others in other ways. However I wouldn't describe blaming one's self as wickedness but rather as a form of humility that is based on fear of God, which is a Spirit of God.
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?
The problem is yet semantics. It seems to me that I would rather err as too forgiving, than err for being too harsh when blaming others (2), while I would rather err as too harsh rather than err too forgiving when blaming myself (2). The point being that only God can truly say. I think what I should say is I find nothing wrong with being judged by God.
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?
As I see it, this man did find fault, with God.
Perhaps I should give you the example of what I mean by a no blame scenario. Man was alone and so God took a piece of him and made a mate for him, woman. And when Adam saw the woman, he treasured her above everything else that God had made. But the woman, being a piece of the man and having never been alone as the man had been, she could not reciprocate. She could not esteem Adam equally. Whose fault is it? And the man would be forgiving towards her even though because of the circumstances she was not to blame. Moreover, the woman gave birth to a child through knowing the man, and she loved that piece of her more than the child could understand. And the child took the Mother for granted. Whose fault is it? And she was forgiving, even though because of the circumstances the child was not to blame. And coming full circle, she understood what it was to be the man.
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.
I would have to say that the circumstances for murder would have to be evaluated in each case. For example, Christ was murdered and Stephen was murdered for the sake of the Gospel. Yet these I would see as forgiven. Those in the flesh, would not understand this doctrine. For if they had this doctrine they would find no reason to murder since they would find no reason to blame and no reason to delight in murder.
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).
Yes as per blame (2), I would agree.
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.
Your cautious approach is noted and respected. I think I should begin with the Christ. Did Christ blame anyone? He healed what he called the blind, and the lame, the sick need a doctor, etc...These are the terms he used to address sinners. "Forgive them for they know not what they do".... He said this of those who scorned him and beat him and crucified him. Moreover his judgment is meant to cast out the accuser, John 12:31. Revelation 12:10. So, the Spirit of Christ does not blame, even though he forgives. But yet his judgments get rid of the accuser that blames. So upon what reasoning did Christ say these things, believe these things? I am attempting to say what this reasoning is, which I call a no blame scenario. If this interests you, we can talk more in depth.
