Blame

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Can one blame a rock for falling off a cliff? Can one blame an Irishman for being born with red hair, or another from being born with blue or brown eyes? Can one, in justice, place blame where necessity is in force?

 

[soninme]

Can one blame a rock for falling off a cliff? Can one blame an Irishman for being born with red hair, or another from being born with blue or brown eyes? Can one, in justice, place blame where necessity is in force?

i once seen an irishman with red hair , and blue eyes , being hit with a rock which fell off a cliff , the thing was i wasnt sure who was to blame , lol :laugh:

 

[bound]

Can one blame a rock for falling off a cliff? Can one blame an Irishman for being born with red hair, or another from being born with blue or brown eyes? Can one, in justice, place blame where necessity is in force?

One day you will reconcile this apparent dichotomy between responsibility and inevitability. I pray that day comes soon... :laugh:

 

[Andre]

Can one blame a rock for falling off a cliff? Can one blame an Irishman for being born with red hair, or another from being born with blue or brown eyes? Can one, in justice, place blame where necessity is in force?

No, one cannot assign blame where necessity is in force without doing violence to the very concepts that even allow us to reason about this is in the first place.

I think we often fail to be sufficiently critical in the way we use the very "tools" of thought. The very meaning of the word "blame" has notions of freedom of contrary action already bundled into the term. And if you want to take implicit personal freedom of contrary choice out of the word "blame", you change the very meaning of the word.

At the risk of seeming cynical, some in the church, intentionally or otherwise, try to play it both ways - they try to construct theological systems which attribute blame to persons who have no power of contrary choice. This simply cannot work if we are to be consistent in the way we think. These theological systems "eat their own tail".

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: No, one cannot assign blame where necessity is in force without doing violence to the very concepts that even allow us to reason about this is in the first place.

I think we often fail to be sufficiently critical in the way we use the very "tools" of thought. The very meaning of the word "blame" has notions of freedom of contrary action already bundled into the term. And if you want to take implicit personal freedom of contrary choice out of the word "blame", you change the very meaning of the word.

At the risk of seeming cynical, some in the church, intentionally or otherwise, try to play it both ways - they try to construct theological systems which attribute blame to persons who have no power of contrary choice. This simply cannot work if we are to be consistent in the way we think. These theological systems "eat their own tail".

HP: Now that is a refreshing voice of reason. :thumbs: :thumbs:

You can certianly tell when some on this list have been caught eating their own tail by the way they wag their jokes at such an important question. :smilewinkgrin:

PS: I am not speaking of you Soninme. I guess that just leaves Bound a wagging.:laugh:

 

[bound]

HP: Now that is a refreshing voice of reason. :thumbs: :thumbs:

You can certianly tell when some on this list have been caught eating their own tail by the way they wag their jokes at such an important question. :smilewinkgrin:

PS: I am not speaking of you Soninme. I guess that just leaves Bound a wagging.:laugh:

I don't mind being your whipping boy, HP. But do be clear that, on the surface, I don't have a problem with what Andre has posited. I don't refute that we have the ability to choose (i.e. Free-Will) I simply don't agree that such ability is an inherent power of our fallen nature neither do I believe we can 'take' salvation from God by force... it will always remain a gift offered and accepted.

"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin." ~ Romans 4:7-8

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: I don't mind being your whipping boy, HP. But do be clear that, on the surface, I don't have a problem with what Andre has posited. I don't refute that we have the ability to choose (i.e. Free-Will)

HP: Bound, please forgive me. You are no whipping boy. You stand head and shoulders above me in intellect and knowledge in numerous areas if not all. I was trying to lighten up the discussion a bit, but doing that at another’s expense was uncalled for. Onward to the substance.

Let me ask you again. If our fallen nature consists in inability of the will. How do the heathen do the things contained in the law not even having the law? Numerous writers have championed the exploits of heathen men and their abilities to overcome numerous moral dilemmas. Certainly none of their accomplishments or advancements against the inclinations of the flesh have the least merit towards salvation, yet just the same, it is exceedingly evident that men have wills and can under certain influences act in accordance to love against major influences to selfishness. If the will of man, the chooser itself, becomes unable to actually choose differently than it does under the very same set of circumstances, such a one has left the realm of morality and no longer is blamed or praised for their intents or actions. Such a one in that condition is certainly to be pitied and protected from them selves and isolated so as not to endanger the lives of others, but to punish the individual for acting in a manner in which their intents have no attached selfish motives is unthinkable. We would call such a one as insane.

Bound: neither do I believe we can 'take' salvation from God by force... it will always remain a gift offered and accepted.

HP: Neither do I and I believe I can safely say that neither did Pelagius. Just the same, man’s will and his intents are indeed involved in the salvation process or in the commission of sin. I agree that salvation is a gift, but it, according to scripture, is indeed conditional upon man forming intents of repentance, belief, faith, and obedience to the end. Man’s involvement is always thought of in the sense of not without which, not that for the sake of. We are not saved for the sake of repentance or faith, but neither will we saved apart from repentance and faith. Repentance and faith are works God calls upon man to do, and are not the coerced results of grace or God forcing his will on man. Gods grace and His influences in salvation are passive and must be accepted by the will of man as man voluntarily and without coercion fulfills the conditions of salvation God has set forth in His Word.

 

[Andre]

Hello bound:

On a lighter note, do you realize that some of us (i.e. me at least) cannot help but assume that you look like the person represented in your avatar. Please say it isn't so.....:laugh:

 

[bound]

HP: Bound, please forgive me. You are no whipping boy. You stand head and shoulders above me in intellect and knowledge in numerous areas if not all. I was trying to lighten up the discussion a bit, but doing that at another’s expense was uncalled for. Onward to the substance.

Oh, you are most forgiven. By no means, do hold you or anyone on this forum as 'beneath' me or anyone seeking to please God on our journey and although I appreciate your very kind words I deny all of them.

Let me ask you again. If our fallen nature consists in inability of the will. How do the heathen do the things contained in the law not even having the law? Numerous writers have championed the exploits of heathen men and their abilities to overcome numerous moral dilemmas. Certainly none of their accomplishments or advancements against the inclinations of the flesh have the least merit towards salvation, yet just the same, it is exceedingly evident that men have wills and can under certain influences act in accordance to love against major influences to selfishness. If the will of man, the chooser itself, becomes unable to actually choose differently than it does under the very same set of circumstances, such a one has left the realm of morality and no longer is blamed or praised for their intents or actions. Such a one in that condition is certainly to be pitied and protected from them selves and isolated so as not to endanger the lives of others, but to punish the individual for acting in a manner in which their intents have no attached selfish motives is unthinkable. We would call such a one as insane.

Arminianism teaches that 'all' humanity are born morally and spiritually depraved, and helpless to do 'the good' or anything 'worthy of merit' in God's sight without a special infusion of God's grace to overcome the effects of original sin.

Not only are all men born under the penalty of death, as a consequence of sin, but they are born with a depraved nature also, which in contradistinction to the legal aspect of penalty, is generally termed inbred sin or inherited depravity." Wiley, Christian Theology, p.98

Classical Arminiansim agrees with Evangelical orthodoxy in general that the unity of humanity in sin results in all being born "children of wrath." However, Arminians believe that Christ's death on the cross provides a univeral remedy for the guilt of inherited sin so that it is not imputed to infants for Christ's sake. This is how Arminians, in agreement with Anabaptists, such as Mennonites, interpret the universalistic passages of the New Testament such as Romans 5, where all are said to be included under sin just as all are included in redemption through Christ. It is also the Arminian interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:10, which indicates 'two' salvations through Christ: one universal for all people and one especially for all who believe. Arminian belief in genreal redemption is not univeral salvation: it is univeral redemption form Adam's sin. Thus, in Arminian theology all children who die before reaching the age of awakening of conscience and falling into actual sin (as opposed to inbred sin) are considered innocent by God and are taken to paradice. Among those who commit actual sins only those who repent and believe have Christ as Saviour.

Arminans regards original sin primarily as a moral depravity that results from deprivation of the image of God; it is the loss of power (i.e. strength) to avoid actual sin without cooperation in sanctifying grace which saves and restores, heals and rebuilds our wounded nature.

HP: Neither do I and I believe I can safely say that neither did Pelagius. Just the same, man’s will and his intents are indeed involved in the salvation process or in the commission of sin. I agree that salvation is a gift, but it, according to scripture, is indeed conditional upon man forming intents of repentance, belief, faith, and obedience to the end. Man’s involvement is always thought of in the sense of not without which, not that for the sake of. We are not saved for the sake of repentance or faith, but neither will we saved apart from repentance and faith. Repentance and faith are works God calls upon man to do, and are not the coerced results of grace or God forcing his will on man. Gods grace and His influences in salvation are passive and must be accepted by the will of man as man voluntarily and without coercion fulfills the conditions of salvation God has set forth in His Word.

I don't believe Arminians and Wesleyans necessarily disagree with your assertion we only argue that such choice is 'powered' by the grace given freely by God.

So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. ~ Romans 4:16

 

[bound]

Hello bound:

On a lighter note, do you realize that some of us (i.e. me at least) cannot help but assume that you look like the person represented in your avatar. Please say it isn't so.....:laugh:

Ah, no I am 10 years young and my bread is about 2 inches shorter and not as grey... but it's getting there. :laugh:

 

[BobRyan]

, I don't have a problem with what Andre has posited. I don't refute that we have the ability to choose (i.e. Free-Will) I simply don't agree that such ability is an inherent power of our fallen nature neither do I believe we can 'take' salvation from God by force... it will always remain a gift offered and accepted.

"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin." ~ Romans 4:7-8

The argument that God "needs" to provide choice and free will of some kind to rightly establish blame -- does not also dictate how He must give it.

The debate between Bound and HP would be such that both agree that the lost have free will but Bound claims God must give it to them in some way - whereas HP argues that it would not be fair if God had to first give them free will and that is either because He "might not give it to others as well and that is not fair" or if He does give it to all it is still not fair that they did not have it by virtue of their existence alone.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: The debate between Bound and HP would be such that both agree that the lost have free will but Bound claims God must give it to them in some way - whereas HP argues that it would not be fair if God had to first give them free will and that is either because He "might not give it to others as well and that is not fair" or if He does give it to all it is still not fair that they did not have it by virtue of their existence alone.

HP: There is still another issue here at stake. If man, as a sinner does not have free will as recognized by contrary choice when he chooses any intent period prior to having the message of salvation presented to him, sin is necessitated and as such cannot be culpable. In such a case God would be unjust for blaming any man for such a necessitated fate, let alone punishing man for failure to overcome necessitated fate.

Are you following this point as well?

 

[BobRyan]

I thought that in all cases man has free will -- in the case of the lost supernaturally enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit to accept Christ - yield to the Gospel and become born again - rather than "sin".

in the case of the saved - enabled in the New Birth to choose to walk according to the Spirit and put to death the deads of the flesh.

Your argument above is what of the sins committed WHILE freely choosing NOT to yield to the direction of God's Holy Spirit who "Convicts the World of sin and righteousness and judgment".

In other words how much free choice is left WHILE freely choosing to reject your source of salvation. I believe that for those who are in the lost state and are freely choosing to reject the Gospel there remains some modifying influence of the Holy Spirit and the angels of God such that all the lost are not "mass murderers". This is what we see in Rev 7 where the angels of God restrains the four winds of war and passion in the wicked world while the work of the Gospel continues.

But your question is in fact -- what happens when they do not apply that supernatural restraint. What is the sinful heart of man "fully capable of" left unrestrained. And what "good" will men choose "even without God" influencing them for good at all. A case where "God who convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" ceases to do so.

Interesting point to explore. Not sure how far they will go into sin or how "good" they can be on their own according to Romans 3.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[David Lamb]

Can one blame a rock for falling off a cliff? Can one blame an Irishman for being born with red hair, or another from being born with blue or brown eyes? Can one, in justice, place blame where necessity is in force?

Is it really a "necessity" that Irishmen are born with red hair? If it is, the sales for hair dye in Ireland must be enormous. :laugh:

Seriously though, I would guess that the sort of thing you are talking about is what Paul describes in Romans 9.14-24:

14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"


​

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

David Lamb: Is it really a "necessity" that Irishmen are born with red hair? If it is, the sales for hair dye in Ireland must be enormous.

HP: I in no way stated or insinuated that all Irishmen are born with red hair. My point was that ‘those who are’ are that way by necessity. It would be as absurd to punish them for the being born with red hair as it would be for God to judge and punish a man for sin if in fact it is necessitated from birth. Would you not agree?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: I thought that in all cases man has free will -- in the case of the lost supernaturally enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit to accept Christ - yield to the Gospel and become born again - rather than "sin".

HP: This Leaves the reader wondering what is is that you are trying to say. It is an incomplete thought as I see it.

BR: in the case of the saved - enabled in the New Birth to choose to walk according to the Spirit and put to death the deads of the flesh.

HP: I cannot follow this either. It is an incomplete thought as well. What are you trying to say?

BR: Your argument above is what of the sins committed WHILE freely choosing NOT to yield to the direction of God's Holy Spirit who "Convicts the World of sin and righteousness and judgment".

HP: You will have to try again and re-word this one as well. Sorry. O must be having a bad day.

 

[David Lamb]

HP: I in no way stated or insinuated that all Irishmen are born with red hair. My point was that ‘those who are’ are that way by necessity. It would be as absurd to punish them for the being born with red hair as it would be for God to judge and punish a man for sin if in fact it is necessitated from birth. Would you not agree?

So that leaves me puzzled as to why you mentioned Irishmen at all - why not just say "....a redhead for being born with red hair"? (But I hasten to add that I did not intend that part of my earlier reply to be too serious, which is why I put the smiley in, and started the next part with the words, "Seriously though."

I cannot agree that it is wrong for God to judge and punish man for sin. That passage I quoted from Romans 9 seems clear on this.

 

[Andre]

Seriously though, I would guess that the sort of thing you are talking about is what Paul describes in Romans 9.14-24:

14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

I am going to politely suggest that this text can be shown to have nothing whatever to do with the issue of how individuals are treated by God in respect to the matters being discussed here (e.g. free will, etc).

This text is about national Israel. More specifically, Paul is arguing that God has the right to use national Israel for his divine redemptive purposes. In particular, in this text, I suggest that Paul is arguing that God has the right to use Israel as a vessel of destruction.

I am more than happy to provide supporting Scriptural arguments. While this may seem like a tangent, I think that the Romans 9 text has been repeatedly misinterpreted. It really cannot be properly used in the context of any discussion of how God treat individuals.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

David Lamb: So that leaves me puzzled as to why you mentioned Irishmen at all - why not just say "....a redhead for being born with red hair"?

HP: Now that is indeed a logical point. I suppose it was the Irish in me coming out through my keyboard. :laugh:

DL: I cannot agree that it is wrong for God to judge and punish man for sin. That passage I quoted from Romans 9 seems clear on this.

HP: Who said it was wrong for God to judge and punish man for sin? I certainly did not.

 

[David Lamb]

I am going to politely suggest that this text can be shown to have nothing whatever to do with the issue of how individuals are treated by God in respect to the matters being discussed here (e.g. free will, etc).

This text is about national Israel. More specifically, Paul is arguing that God has the right to use national Israel for his divine redemptive purposes. In particular, in this text, I suggest that Paul is arguing that God has the right to use Israel as a vessel of destruction.

I am more than happy to provide supporting Scriptural arguments. While this may seem like a tangent, I think that the Romans 9 text has been repeatedly misinterpreted. It really cannot be properly used in the context of any discussion of how God treat individuals.

And just as politely (I hope!) I suggest that Romans 9 is not just about national Israel. As I understand it, Romans was written to all the Christians in Rome, not only those who were of Jewish nationality. For instance, in Romans 1.13, he talks of "fruit among you" (his readers) "just as among the other Gentiles." Romans 9.24 says: "even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." Romans 9 certainly seems to be talking about the way God treats individuals. "The Scripture says to Pharaoh" (not "Egypt"); "O man, who are you" ("Thou" in the AV, so presumably singular); "even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles" - (of the Jews, not the Jewish nation).

But I will leave it there, rather than going off-topic with this thread.