Blame

[David Lamb]

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




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

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

David Lamb: Sorry, I misunderstood you.

HP: No problem. Happens to all of us at one time or another. My point most likely was that IF man lacks the abilities to obey him from first light of moral agency, THEN God would be unjust for holding man accountable for failure to do that which is impossible to do, overcome necessitated fate. Hope that helps.
Have a great day in the Lord! Pray one for another!

 

[bound]

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

Grace and Peace Bob,

I like your take on this Bob. I am very much supportive of your points here.

Be Well.

 

[Andre]

I am going to present an argument that Romans 9; 20-23 is not about God's treatment of individuals but is rather about his treatment of national Israel. I claim thiat this is relevant to the matter at hand since, if the argument works, it undermines the claim that Romans 9 asserts that God can "blame" individual people who are "pre-destined" to loss.

Romans 9 is about how God has been faithful to the covenant with national Israel and, more specifically, the "potter's account" in verses 20 - 23 is Paul's explanation of how God "has the right" to use national Israel for a specific purpose in his redemptive plans. It has nothing to do with matters of individual persons being elected to receive or not receive faith.

The fact that Romans 9 and 10 is all about the covenant with national Israel is clear and I suggest that the evidence for this is overwheming. I shall return to this. In a context where Paul is clearly explaining things about national Israel, it makes no sense to have him suddenly go off on a tangent and make theological statements about individuals being pre-destined to saving faith (whether Jew or Gentile or whatever).

What has Paul been talking about just prior to his giving the potter account? He has been talking about a hardening - the hardening of Pharoah. Why has Pharoah been hardened? To effect a great act of redemption of God's part - the deliverance of the Hebrews out of Egypt. It then follows that Paul's giving of the potter's account should also address a hardening that takes place in order to effect great redemptive purpose. Who is being hardened? Israel is being hardened. What is the great redemptive act? - accumulating the sin of the world onto national Israel so that it can then be transferred onto her Messiah. I will provide arguments for all this in other posts.

Now back to Romans 9 (and 10) being all about the covenant: Note the following from Romans 10:

"But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down)"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming."

Now consider the following from Deuteronomy 30:

It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Is anyone going to deny that Paul is "transcribing" from this text in Deuteronomy. But what is Deuteronomy 30 all about?

It is about covenant renewal. Starting at verse 1 we have

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes [a] and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you.

This clear reference to the covenant - and specifically the element of covenant renewal - comes at the end of a retelling of the covennat story that begins in Romans 9. Its all there - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the disobedience of the people to the covenant, exile, and here in this text - covenant renewal.

If you come to Romans 9 wanting it to affirm a belief that you bring to the text about individuals being predestined, you can always come to vv 20-23 and claim that your belief is supported. But you do so at the price of ignoring a powerful body of evidence that shows this material is about the "election" of Israel. If one ignores context, almost any position can be argued for.

 

[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".

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.

Bound: I like your take on this Bob. I am very much supportive of your points here.

HP: I would like for either BR or Bound to define sin. I am not looking for some made up philosophical notion that supports Augustinian original sin, I am looking for biblical definitions of sin. I know how Bound desires Scriptural support.

Show us one definition of sin that defines sin as the unavoidable results of coercion or force. That is exactly what BR, by implication, defined it above as and Bound says he agrees with.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

HP: An excellent passage indeed. So BR and Bound, what is the word that is very near you, and in your mouth and your heart that you may obey it?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by 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".

HP: No free will, no responsibility. No free will, no culpability. No free will, praise, blame, and or punishment or rewards for failure to do the impossible (anything other than to sin according to you) is absurd. No free will, no moral agency. No free will, the law is made void. No free will, no accountability period.

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: You have just eliminated all culpability for the sinners actions, antecedent to hearing the gospel message. I cannot believe it when Bound states he agree with you.




Let me ask BR and Bound a question. Who grants to the heathen the power to resist the basic knowledge God grants to them concerning a Creator or intuitive understanding of right and wrong? If one is unable to do the right, how can there be any wrong? Wrong is the failure to do right, and if one is unable to do anything different than what one does, how is it wrong? You might as well blame one for hitting the ground after being shoved off a cliff as to punish man for failure to do the impossible.

This notion of having no free will until one is granted the gospel message is simply unfounded in Scripture or reason. It is beyond absurd to conclude that the sinner has no other option than to sin. Even the heathen have a better grasp on truth than that. Even the heathen recognize the culpability of a sinners actions amd the need to direct their lives in accordance to the light and understanding they have. What are we thinking??

BR: 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.

HP: Your premise has no merit BR. You are suggesting that until one receives the gospel message they have no free will or ability to obey the light of their conscience. Scripture flatly refutes such a position in Ro 2:14 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” Are you to tell me that those that do not even have the law have already received the message of the gospel? Reason says it is absurd. Where is your support for such a notion? Bound, are you certain you agree with BR on the point he is making? Surely not.

I have asked BR before just when he heard the gospel, and if in fact he had a free will prior to it, and have never received an answer that I know of. Bound, I cannot believe that you, with your extensive knowledge of history, could believe for a minute that the heathen that have not necessarily heard the gospel not only have a free will but have exercised it in numerous ways that have been documented when they overcame many hurtful lust. Where does Scripture ever equate moral agency or the advent of a free will to being subsequent to the hearing the gospel?