Featured Do these scriptures deny human RESPONSIBILITY?

However, coming back to the OP of this thread. God obligated israel to keeping ALL of the Law knowing fully well they were UNABLE to do so, but condemned them for failure!

This proves that the lack of ability does not relieve sinners from obligation or condemnation for failure.

How do you rationally or Biblically justify just condemnation for something they are completely unable to do??????

We justify it by Romans 5:12-19 where the whole human race consisted and existed and acted in one person - Adam - and willfully forfeited their ability to keep the Law of God by sinning.

 

One easy flaw to see in that argument is more than a little remarkable to anyone familiar with the system of Animal sacrifices given to Israel with the explicit purpose of dealing with sin and obtaining forgiveness.

ALL were "saved by grace through faith" from Adam onward - covered under the ONE Gospel "from Adam onward" and Paul points out that the "Gospel was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:7-8 as well as in Heb 4:1-2 "The Gospel was preached to US just as it was to THEM also".

The Gospel of God from the fall of man onward included the moral law of God written on the heart (Even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" admits to this) - and the promise of forgiveness illustrating Christ under the types of the animal sacrifices.

"They all drank from the same Spiritual ROCK (Petra) and that ROCK was Christ" 1Cor 10.

The Nation had not sinned when it swore allegiance to God - though some individuals likely sinned that very day - but no objection from God in heaven. Because they had a model, a system for mediation and forgiveness.

The "God is unreasonable so don't complain if we present him that way to the world" argument that Calvinism "needs" to rely upon - is flawed.

Hence the "Lament of God - vs Calvinism's Gospel saboteur" thread.

2. The second detail is similar to the first. God hold's people accountable for sinning because they do have the option of being freed from sin as Romans 6 and 1John 2:1 and 1John 3 insist.

Paul agrees that the lost sinner is enslaved to sinning in both Romans 8:6-8 and in Romans 6 and in Eph 2:1-6.

But the lost sinner has the choice to repent and serve God -- just as the drunk driver had the choice not to drink. You can argue that at a certain level of drunkeness the drunk has no ability to navigate the busy intersection - but he is held guilty anyway for each violation because he chose to drink.

in Christ,

Bob

 

They were getting ready to stone Moses and go back to Egypt. That is "sin" of a very specific sort.

But it is not a sin that they "could not help but commit".

The unreasonable-God story does not work in the case of Israel.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Is unbelief "sin"? If so, your whole argument vanishes! The whole sacrificial system and the cross are wholly unnecessary if man did not sin - sin is the violation of the Law - 1 Jn. 26 and whatsoever is not of faith is sin - Rom. 14:26.

ONE POINT is sufficient to be justly condemned as a sinner. God knows fully well that no fallen human being can obey the Law, no human being has that ABILITY to keep ONE POINT - James 2:10. Nevertheless, God condemns them for what He know they cannot do but are obligated to do. Your system breaks down right here and is proven to be false as your entire system stands or falls upon the false principle that God cannot justly condemn anyone for what they are unable to do AND your denial that inability can be justly condemned - period!

My system stands completely upon the undeniable fact that the entire human nature existed and consisted in ONE MAN who willingly sinned thus forfeiting his previous SINLESS condition and ability to sustain, maintain or obtain that forfeited SINLESS state prior to the fall. My system provides the only JUST basis for condemning fallen men for what they have no ability to do.

 

1 John 3:4 "Sin is transgression of the Law"

No doubt that violation of the law is what sin is - and Christ perfectly fulfilled not only the righteous life demanded by the Law but also the penalty for sin demanded by the Law of God - thus the Law of God stands under the Gospel - fully in place while at the same time saving sinners from the second death - lake of fire in Rev 20

More than this - He provides the 1Cor 10 "Way of escape" so that "NO temptation" can over take the one who puts on the Gospel armor as long as the saints rely on the arm of strength - the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

If God were not going to save man - but rather burn him - not offering the Gospel - then why let generations live only to create new beings with new debt to roast in the fires of hell?

God would be complicit.

But instead God provides salvation from day ONE!.

Starting with Adam - the way of escape is made AND mankind is allowed to live and have new generations of children born in sinful state - with free will. And in this scenario God is love, is just, is merciful and is not complicit in their sins for he provides a way of escape from day one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

A post-defacto way of escape does not deny just condemnation for failing to observe what God knew they were without ability to observe as commanded. A post-facto way of escape does not change the definition of sin or the obligatory standard of obedience defined in James 2:10-11 nor removes the total inaiblity of the fallen nature to meet that standard - Rom. 8:7-8

The Post-defacto way of escape PROVES the problem rather than denies that is the condition of the fallen nature as there is no need for escape if you were ABLE to escape by simple obedience to that standard - there would be no need of Christ or salvation IF fallen man had ability to keep the law according to God's standard of obedience - Period!

 

Such irreversable condition can only be INDIVIDUALLY applied to the NATION as it then existed. However, FUTURE NATIONAL ISRAEL is not made up of the same individuals but are made of "elect" individuals as Romans 11:26-28 clearly demonstrates as the final fulfillment of this covenant promise has to do with the "election" - v. 28 Hence, the NATION as then rejected and turned from is the same NATION but not composed of the same INDIVIDUALS when "all Israel" shall be saved but composed of the elect - v. 28

 

True! But that is only because He first obligated Himself and obligated Christ to save only those he first GAVE to come to the Son (Jn. 6:37-39; Jn. 17:2). NONE "shall" come but those given to Christ to come. Note the future tense "shall" come making coming the consequence not the cause for being given to Christ. So God obligates Himself to no more than whom he gave to Christ to come as these are the ONLY ones that NONE SHALL BE LOST because they were given to come to Christ - Jn. 6:38-39.

And here is the crux of your error. Lack of ability is not God's fault but repentance and faith are the obligations and duties of all who sin against God.

Here is where you system breaks down because God does obligate sinners to do what they are unable to do and justly condemns for not doing and that is proven by giving them the law and commanding them to do it in face of penalization for not doing all the time knowing they are completely unable to do it. This is just ONLY because all humanity existed and consisted in one indivisible human nature in ONE MAN who freely forfeited a PRE-FALLEN SINLESS OBEDIENT CONDITION thus ABILITY to fall into complete and total inability to be "subject to the law of God and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE."

Here is the archeles heel of your system and where it self-destructs as you have no other just basis for this than our interpretation of Romans 5:12.

 

the constitutent individual elements that make up the NATION of Israel change from generation to generation. In every generation God has an "elect remnant" while the rest are blinded. However, the transition from Israel as the visible expression of God's kingdom on earth was forfeited by the NATION of Israel and its constituents at the time of Christ and transferred institutionally to the congregations of Christ among the gentiles and will remain there until God's purpose of election is complete among the gentiles (Rom. 11:25) and the appointed time for the salvation of the nation of Israel at the second coming of Christ (Rom. 11:26-28) where the consitituent elements of the majority of the nation are made up of the elect - v. 28.

 

Skandelon,

Would you show how the blood is for the sins of all, yet applied to only a few?

John didn't make any such statement. Neither did Peter or Paul.

I realize that the thinking is because it is consistent with the "prevenient grace" thinking, but I just do not see it as consistent with Scriptures.

Of course, in showing that the blood was not applied to all, then you would also have to conclude that folks are cast into the Lake of Fire because of sins. (a common error)

Rather, the Scriptures are clear that the absence of the name in the book of life is the qualification for entry into the Lake of Fire.

 

And in your own view the name is not in the book why?

Probably not a necessary comment as it does nothing to move the discussion forward.

 

Excellent question.

What some would state is because they didn't "choose" Christ.

However, Romans doesn't use the word choose, but confess.

Confess is testimony given of what already occurred. Not of what is to come or to serve as a catalyst to start an action.

Some might state it is because they didn't "accept" Christ.

However, John 3 clearly states it is not accept or reject but belief. Belief is a change in the core structures of which the intellect rely upon as principles to live - the difference shown in Saul compared to Paul - same person - core change.

So, why is it that many names are not in the book of life?

Because no reconciliation occurred.

John states (1 John) that a believer is known by keeping the commandments of God and treatment of the neighbors.

In my opinion, John was stating in brief what the Lord Jesus Christ shared in Matthew 7 to the background to the statement "And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’"