Do these scriptures deny human RESPONSIBILITY?

[The Biblicist]

Can you reword this question? I'm not understanding it.

Ok. Romans 1:18 asserts that the lost world "holds down" or surpresses the light they are given. In Romans 1:18-32 there is no other assessment given other than supression of the light. In Romans 1:21-32 there is a distinct model of what hardening is and its downward spiral progression that begins with intentional surpression of light unto the point of hardening where the person takes delight in others rebelling against the light.

My point is that the light provided in Romans 1:19-20 finds no other response by the lost world then surpression and hardening. No other response to the light given by God in Romans 1:19-20 is to be found. If the lost condition or the fallen nature would make any other kind of response other than supression and hardening then why is it not mentioned?

I believe it is not mentioned because it is Paul's intent to prove what he says is his conclusion in Romans 3:9-20 that no lost person, Gentile or Jew seeks after God or responds by any good or righteous act toward God. Thus the fallen nature described in Romans 3:10-18 responds only by supression of light when exposed to light (Rom. 1:18-20) which leads to a progressive hardening (Rom. 1:21-32).

 

[pinoybaptist]

...............
I believe Calvinists get the cart before the horse on this issue as John 20:31 states, "by believing we may have life..." not the other way around. Scripture continually places man's response to God's appeal FIRST....we confess to be forgiven...we turn to Christ to have the veil removed...we repent to be cleansed... we believe to gain life...etc etc. This is at the heart of human RESPONSE-ABILITY...the ability of man to respond to God's invitation...his appeal for all men everywhere to be reconciled to God.

The only reason debates go on, innuendoes are hurled, and insults spoken is because everybody wants to speak of salvation as something which pertains only to the eternal destiny of the sinner's soul.

When we look at Scripture and its teaching about salvation that way, then what follows is an incorrect division of the Scriptures, and it doesn't matter which side of the two soteriology fences one is at, Arminianism or freewill, or Calvinism or Election.

Both agree that salvation is by grace through faith, but if faith is thrown into the mix then grace is no longer free. And in the matter of eternal salvation, grace is ALWAYS free and unattached to any other whether it be obedience, faith, submissiveness, etc.

When the others are thrown in whether by theology or in Scriptures, then one needs to examine very closely and in context whether the salvation being spoken about is the eternal destiny of the soul, or whether the salvation being spoken about is the TIMELY benefit of the redeemed sinner.

The problem is that both sides, freewillers and arminians, calvinists and electionists, want to apply the Scriptures to each and every man, woman, and child on this planet and in this time world.

Romans 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:12 clearly states that ALL scriptures are for OUR (as in the people of God, as in those who call on the Name of the Lord, as in those who apply the Name to themselves) benefit and learning.

For as long as we refuse to believe and accept that God would dare to include whom He wants included and exclude whom He wants excluded in both the matter of Eternity, and in the matter of Timely or Temporal salvation, then we can swear to high heavens that God is Sovereign and we can even have all angels shouting hallelujahs to our declaration and it will not matter because the fact is we have put into question His sovereignty.

 

[convicted1]

Experiential feelings are never a good foundation for doctrine, but I understand what you are saying and how you felt. I have had similar experiences. And I'm not denying the calling power of God's gracious appeal, I'm just not going so far as to suggest that such calling is limited to a preselect few and effectually applied.

I believe Calvinists get the cart before the horse on this issue as John 20:31 states, "by believing we may have life..." not the other way around. Scripture continually places man's response to God's appeal FIRST....we confess to be forgiven...we turn to Christ to have the veil removed...we repent to be cleansed... we believe to gain life...etc etc. This is at the heart of human RESPONSE-ABILITY...the ability of man to respond to God's invitation...his appeal for all men everywhere to be reconciled to God.

I try to live by this saying; "We aren't saved by our feelings, but we're not saved without them".

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The only reason debates go on, innuendoes are hurled, and insults spoken is because everybody wants to speak of salvation as something which pertains only to the eternal destiny of the sinner's soul.

When we look at Scripture and its teaching about salvation that way, then what follows is an incorrect division of the Scriptures, and it doesn't matter which side of the two soteriology fences one is at, Arminianism or freewill, or Calvinism or Election.

Both agree that salvation is by grace through faith, but if faith is thrown into the mix then grace is no longer free. And in the matter of eternal salvation, grace is ALWAYS free and unattached to any other whether it be obedience, faith, submissiveness, etc.

When the others are thrown in whether by theology or in Scriptures, then one needs to examine very closely and in context whether the salvation being spoken about is the eternal destiny of the soul, or whether the salvation being spoken about is the TIMELY benefit of the redeemed sinner.

The problem is that both sides, freewillers and arminians, calvinists and electionists, want to apply the Scriptures to each and every man, woman, and child on this planet and in this time world.

Romans 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:12 clearly states that ALL scriptures are for OUR (as in the people of God, as in those who call on the Name of the Lord, as in those who apply the Name to themselves) benefit and learning.

For as long as we refuse to believe and accept that God would dare to include whom He wants included and exclude whom He wants excluded in both the matter of Eternity, and in the matter of Timely or Temporal salvation, then we can swear to high heavens that God is Sovereign and we can even have all angels shouting hallelujahs to our declaration and it will not matter because the fact is we have put into question His sovereignty.

GOOD POST....amen & amen :thumbsup:

BTW.... if you read Luthers book, Bondage of the Will.......he would agree with you.

 

[webdog]

Experiential feelings are never a good foundation for doctrine, but I understand what you are saying and how you felt. I have had similar experiences. And I'm not denying the calling power of God's gracious appeal, I'm just not going so far as to suggest that such calling is limited to a preselect few and effectually applied.

I believe Calvinists get the cart before the horse on this issue as John 20:31 states, "by believing we may have life..." not the other way around. Scripture continually places man's response to God's appeal FIRST....we confess to be forgiven...we turn to Christ to have the veil removed...we repent to be cleansed... we believe to gain life...etc etc. This is at the heart of human RESPONSE-ABILITY...the ability of man to respond to God's invitation...his appeal for all men everywhere to be reconciled to God.

There is just no way around John 20:31. Its as clear as the nose on our faces. Pre faith regeneration (life) is proven false with this one verse alone. Its baffling how anyone can read that and still hold to prefaith regeneration. Who would in their right mind would take 'by running you will lose weight' to mean you couldn't run unless you first lost weight?

 

[The Biblicist]

Pre faith regeneration (life) is proven false with this one verse alone. Its baffling how anyone can read that and still hold to prefaith regeneration. Who would in their right mind would take 'by running you will lose weight' to mean you couldn't run unless you first lost weight?

Just for clarification sake, I do not believe in "pre faith regeneration." I believe that the act of regeneration IS in part supplying the "substance" of the hope that saving faith consists (Heb. 11:1; 2 Cor.4:6). This "substance" provided in regeneration is divine revelation of Jesus Christ as described by Christ in Matthew 16:17 and by Paul in 2 Cor. 4:6 and by Christ again in John 17:3.

In other words, spiritual life is inseparable from divine revelatory knowledge (Jn. 17:3) which is the creative act of God in the elect (2 Cor. 4:6) whereby saving faith is produced. So, saving faith and spiritual life are as inseparable as repentance is to faith - two sides of the same coin and SIMELTANEOUS in regard to chronological order but is in a cause and consequence relationship in regard to logical order just as repentance and faith are in a cause and consequence relationship in regard to logical order.

So there is no such thing as an unregenerated believer any more than there is such a thing as a regenerated unbeliever as that is impossible because the "substance" which provides the "hope" in faith IS the knowledge which IS spiritual life (Jn. 17:3; 2 Cor. 4:6).

 

[Skandelon]

I try to live by this saying; "We aren't saved by our feelings, but we're not saved without them".

I'm not sure how that relates to what I said, but I do agree.

 

[Skandelon]

My point is that the light provided in Romans 1:19-20 finds no other response by the lost world then surpression and hardening.

We need only read Heb. 11 to know this is not the only response of mankind to God's revelation. Rahab believed and it was credited to her as righteousness...'the righteous will live by faith.'

Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Job the list goes on and on of those declared righteous through faith.

Surely you aren't saying that everyone HAS suppressed the truth, because clearly not everyone has...Are you attempting to say that everyone WOULD have suppressed the light and become defiled and 'given over to their defiled ways' IF God hadn't irresistibly regenerated them? Because this text never says that...in fact that implication seems to undermine Paul's whole point in explaining why men are without excuse....which is on the basis that men DO clearly see and understand divine revelation. Why would anyone PRESUME on this text that men are ACTUALLY born totally blind, deaf, dumb and thus unable to understand and turn to God for healing? That would being giving them back the very excuse that Paul just removed from them.

 

[The Biblicist]

We need only read Heb. 11 to know this is not the only response of mankind to God's revelation. Rahab believed and it was credited to her as righteousness...'the righteous will live by faith.'

Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Job the list goes on and on of those declared righteous through faith.

Surely you aren't saying that everyone HAS suppressed the truth, because clearly not everyone has...Are you attempting to say that everyone WOULD have suppressed the light and become defiled and 'given over to their defiled ways' IF God hadn't irresistibly regenerated them? Because this text never says that...in fact that implication seems to undermine Paul's whole point in explaining why men are without excuse....which is on the basis that men DO clearly see and understand divine revelation. Why would anyone PRESUME on this text that men are ACTUALLY born totally blind, deaf, dumb and thus unable to understand and turn to God for healing? That would being giving them back the very excuse that Paul just removed from them.

Trying to use a passage where none but the elect are mentioned (Heb. 11) is not the best method for trying to disprove that Romans 1:18-32 provides no other option to the obviously lost to light than suppression and progressive hardening. In addition look at the point Paul is trying to prove in Romans 1:18-3:8 as expressed clearly in Romans 3:9 which refers to the fallen nature as described in Romans 3:10-20 rather than divine intervention as in Romans 3:24-8:39.

 

[Skandelon]

Trying to use a passage where none but the elect are mentioned (Heb. 11) is not the best method for trying to disprove that Romans 1:18-32 provides no other option to the obviously lost to light than suppression and progressive hardening.

It's the question begging fallacy to presume this list of those justified by faith were the 'elect' of your system, when that is the very point up for debate. My point was only to PROVE that Paul obviously wasn't attempting to say this was the condition of all people, because its wasn't. Whether some weren't because of their response or God's effectual grace is a point for debate, but either way Paul is obviously not address everyone...but just those who DO suppress the truth.

Oh, and can you explain how they can clearly see, understand the truth enough to suppress it without any excuses, yet somehow not clearly see or understand it enough to accept it? Is God's truth weaker than all other truth?

I mean, anyone can hear and believe any common historical fact as being TRUE, yet somehow man is born unable to believe God's truth? Why? Is there something wrong with His truth?

In addition look at the point Paul is trying to prove in Romans 1:18-3:8 as expressed clearly in Romans 3:9 which refers to the fallen nature as described in Romans 3:10-20 rather than divine intervention as in Romans 3:24-8:39.

No one is righteous? Yet Abraham is righteous? How can that be? See my sig line again...

 

[The Biblicist]

It's the question begging fallacy to presume this list of those justified by faith were the 'elect' of your system, when that is the very point up for debate. My point was only to PROVE that Paul obviously wasn't attempting to say this was the condition of all people, because its wasn't. Whether some weren't because of their response or God's effectual grace is a point for debate, but either way Paul is obviously not address everyone...but just those who DO suppress the truth.

First, hebrews 11 deals with the subject of faith whereas Romans 1:18-3:8 has a stated purpose in Romans 3:9 to prove all men are sinners by nature.

None are mentioned in Hebrews 11 who did not walk by faith. To assume they walked by faith from birth, or from the first point of ability to discern right from wrong is an assumption that Hebrews 11 provides NOTHING to support.

The term "all" and "none" cannot be found in hebrews 11 in regard to mankind but the terms "all" and 'none" and "the whole world" can be found in the direct conclusion to Romans 1:18-3:8 in Romans 3:9-23.

In short, you have absolutely no basis whatsoever to use Hebrews 11 to prove your point but I have every basis to use Romans 1:18-3:23 to prove my point because it deals with the UNIVERSAL condition of man BEFORE any kind of conversion experience. In contrast Hebrews 11 does not deal with ANY PRE-coversion condition of any of those mentioned.

Surely, you can see the obvious inequity of your choice of scripture???

 

[BobRyan]

That is the subject of our debate and thus to use it as an argument to prove is circular reasoning. There is not one scripture in the entire Bible that states that God enables all men to respond. That is a theological presumption based upon nothing but wishful thinking.

Even Calvinists 'admit' that the "DRAWING OF GOD" (as seen in John 6 and John 12:32) fully ENABLES the ability to choose, to act - that depravity disables.

Turns out BOTH the Arminian and Calvinist view agree on the fact that the supernatural DRAWING of God - does enable choice.

So the point "remains".

The difference between the two is not that they do not think the Drawing enables choice - the differences are;

1. Arminians admit to John 12:32 "I will DRAW ALL MEN unto ME" and the Calvinists limit it to the "arbitrarily selected few of Matt 7"

2. Arminians admit that the LOST are enabled to act while lost - and do not have to be zapped into the saved first - just DRAWN.

Here we see what the lost CANNOT do

[FONT=&quot]Rom 8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7 because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot], for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Those who claim they are not "able to subject themselves" to the Law of God - are claiming the position of the lost - "in the flesh".

However Romans 10 points out what the lost CAN do that "results in salvation". (And I think they can do it by the power of the Holy Spirit who "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" - not just the born-again, not just the regenerate)

[FONT=&quot]Rom 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." [/FONT]

And as the text states - salvation follows.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

God enables all the lost to respond. One person calls that "natural" another (like me) calls it supernatural

But I think it happens because of God "Convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16 and it is "Drawing ALL men unto Me". John 12:32.

Calls what "natural"????? We do not call it "natural" but we deny it even exists as the fallen nature "is" a STATE of enmity and a STATE of enmity cannot be subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be and that is precisely why all who are "in the flesh CANNOT (not "may not" as your theory demands) please God - Rom. 8:7-8.

1. You cannot deny that John 12:32 and John 16 "Exist" -- I don't think that is an option for a response to that post.

2. God said "I will place EMNITY (war) between the see of the serpent (satan's kingdom) and the seed of the woman (fallen mankind)"

So while it is true that the fallen nature is at war against God it is also true that supernaturally God places war between the fallen nature and the kingdom of darkness.

And so the supernatural work of God as noted in the texts above - becomes an important detail not to miss.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

1. You cannot deny that John 12:32 and John 16 "Exist" -- I don't think that is an option for a response to that post.

2. God said "I will place EMNITY (war) between the see of the serpent (satan's kingdom) and the seed of the woman (fallen mankind)"

So while it is true that the fallen nature is at war against God it is also true that supernaturally God places war between the fallen nature and the kingdom of darkness.

And so the supernatural work of God as noted in the texts above - becomes an important detail not to miss.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, I refuse to make any further replies to your posts because I presented a complete and thorough repudiation of your view of John 12 and you could not and did not have any response EXCEPT just reassert your view. We thoroughly repudiated your interpretation of Revelation 3:20 and forced you to embrace the absolute unbiblical and rediculous idea that God "chastens" His enemies. Hence, there is no basis for thoughtful and objective communication between us and so I am not wasting my time any more with you. No hard feelings on my part just giving you my explanation why I will not be responding to your posts in the future as it would be an exercise of futility.

 

[Skandelon]

Biblicist, did you see this?

Biblicist, much of your argument hinges on the distinction in what you refer to as "natural" ability versus "spiritual" ability.

Can you explain to me how one is naturally able to 'see, hear, understand and turn to be healed' and someone who is spiritually able to 'see, hear, understand and turn to be healed.' Maybe give us an example of someone who has seen, heard, understood and been healed naturally but not spiritually?

Biblicist, Did you see this question?

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, Did you see this question?

Sorry, I did not see that question. Yes, you are correct. My position does hinge on the distinction between natural and spiritual ability. In a recent post I went into great detail explaining that distinction. You probably missed it as I did your post.

The faculty of conscience is designed by God to naturally recognize light and then react to your response to that light. If you react favorably the conscience does not bother you or inflict guilty pangs but if you don't it inflicts guilty pain.

This light is of various types. There is the light of nature, instructive light of your cultural upbringing that may include various philosophical or religous mores. There is direct light of scripture. This is NATURAL ability to see and hear, thus RECONIZE light for what it is, but it is not the ability to respond favorably to what you see and hear in regard to light. Here is where another NATURAL aspect of your nature comes into the picture and that is your fallen nature or old heart. Due to its anti-light nature, or its enmity toward the ultimate source of light it always reacts negatively (Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 3:10-18; 8:7-8) and that negative reaction is what begins the process of hardening. What is being hardened is your NATURAL ability to RECOGNIZE light. This hardening is a process that is quite complicated because hardening can be limited to a specific area or specific type and measure of light in one area of your life or in multiple areas of your life. Hardening can begin by simply choosing to IGNORE and to AVOID a specific exposure to some kind of light. It can be manifested by religous or philsophical attempts to explain away or reinterpret specific and limited aspects of light exposed to. It can be manifested by direct intense resistance to a specified light exposure which could lead to insanity or suicide or theological searing.

The complexity is shown in scripture as the entire process can be briefly summarized as in Psalm 1:1 or can be expanded in linear steps as in Romans 1:21-32 or as in Romans 2:1-5, 17-25.

Through this hardening process the natural ability to RECOGNIZE light is being lost. The giving of a new heart provides SPIRITUAL recognition, perception and postive response.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry, I did not see that question. Yes, you are correct. My position does hinge on the distinction between natural and spiritual ability. In a recent post I went into great detail explaining that distinction. You probably missed it as I did your post.

The faculty of conscience is designed by God to naturally recognize light and then react to your response to that light. If you react favorably the conscience does not bother you or inflict guilty pangs but if you don't it inflicts guilty pain.

This light is of various types. There is the light of nature, instructive light of your cultural upbringing that may include various philosophical or religous mores. There is direct light of scripture. This is NATURAL ability to see and hear, thus RECONIZE light for what it is, but it is not the ability to respond favorably to what you see and hear in regard to light. Here is where another NATURAL aspect of your nature comes into the picture and that is your fallen nature or old heart. Due to its anti-light nature, or its enmity toward the ultimate source of light it always reacts negatively (Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 3:10-18; 8:7-8) and that negative reaction is what begins the process of hardening. What is being hardened is your NATURAL ability to RECOGNIZE light. This hardening is a process that is quite complicated because hardening can be limited to a specific area or specific type and measure of light in one area of your life or in multiple areas of your life. Hardening can begin by simply choosing to IGNORE and to AVOID a specific exposure to some kind of light. It can be manifested by religous or philsophical attempts to explain away or reinterpret specific and limited aspects of light exposed to. It can be manifested by direct intense resistance to a specified light exposure which could lead to insanity or suicide or theological searing.

The complexity is shown in scripture as the entire process can be briefly summarized as in Psalm 1:1 or can be expanded in linear steps as in Romans 1:21-32 or as in Romans 2:1-5, 17-25.

Through this hardening process the natural ability to RECOGNIZE light is being lost. The giving of a new heart provides SPIRITUAL recognition, perception and postive response.

I said the natural man cannot respond FAVORABLY to any exposure of light but will always react UNFAVORABLY. What I mean by that is his reaction is always fostered from a wrong motive which is the root of sin. The reactions that men view as favorable are without the proper motive (1 Cor. 10:31) and therefore are never favorable reactions in the sight of God who looks upon the heart. If the heart motive is wrong the attitude, words and actions are wrong no matter how "good" they appear to men. Good motives originate only from a "good" heart and that kind of heart only originates in new birth.

 

[The Biblicist]

I said the natural man cannot respond FAVORABLY to any exposure of light but will always react UNFAVORABLY. What I mean by that is his reaction is always fostered from a wrong motive which is the root of sin. The reactions that men view as favorable are without the proper motive (1 Cor. 10:31) and therefore are never favorable reactions in the sight of God who looks upon the heart. If the heart motive is wrong the attitude, words and actions are wrong no matter how "good" they appear to men. Good motives originate only from a "good" heart and that kind of heart only originates in new birth.

1. Psa. 1:1 gives a short summary of the process of hardening

2. Romans 1:21-32 gives a more expanded summary of the process of hardening.

3. Romans 2:1-5 and 17-3:8 gives a specific AREA of hardening as does 1 Tim. 4:1-2.

However, the key point is that the fallen nature is without the proper motive to do "good" in God's sight and therefore its response to light is always skewed and part and parcel of the process of hardening.

 

[Skandelon]

Sorry, but I read all that twice and I still don't understand how it answers this question:

Can you explain to me how one is naturally able to 'see, hear, understand and turn to be healed' and someone who is spiritually able to 'see, hear, understand and turn to be healed.' Maybe give us an example of someone who has seen, heard, understood and been healed naturally but not spiritually?

Maybe I'm just too dense....is there a shorter, cliff notes, dumbed down version?

 

[Skandelon]

First, hebrews 11 deals with the subject of faith whereas Romans 1:18-3:8 has a stated purpose in Romans 3:9 to prove all men are sinners by nature.

None are mentioned in Hebrews 11 who did not walk by faith. To assume they walked by faith from birth, or from the first point of ability to discern right from wrong is an assumption that Hebrews 11 provides NOTHING to support.

The term "all" and "none" cannot be found in hebrews 11 in regard to mankind but the terms "all" and 'none" and "the whole world" can be found in the direct conclusion to Romans 1:18-3:8 in Romans 3:9-23.

In short, you have absolutely no basis whatsoever to use Hebrews 11 to prove your point but I have every basis to use Romans 1:18-3:23 to prove my point because it deals with the UNIVERSAL condition of man BEFORE any kind of conversion experience. In contrast Hebrews 11 does not deal with ANY PRE-coversion condition of any of those mentioned.

Surely, you can see the obvious inequity of your choice of scripture???

The only point I was attempting to make by pointing to Heb. 11 was to show that there have been people in the past, like Abraham, who were declared righteous...who didn't necessarily suppress the truth. This was merely to counter the assumption that Paul is attempting to describe what everyone in history has done, and what everyone in history will do (even after the coming of Christ, the sending of the HS, the scriptures, the church etc)