Obligation with ability

[The Biblicist]

It was the obligation of Israel to obey every point of the law and yet they did not have the ability to do that, but nevertheless were justlly condemned for not doing that.

Hence, here is a clear Biblical case of obligation without ability but yet just condemnation for failure.

How do Arminians justify that God could obligate and condemn men to keep the law sinlesslessly whom he knew were competely unable to do so???

We justify it by our intepretation of Romans 5:12 where all man kind existed and consisted and acted in one person - Adam - willfully forfeiting that ability by sin.

Remember, some on this forum have argued on the basis of the term "response-able" that God cannot condemn anyone for what they are not able to perform.

 

[BobRyan]

It was the obligation of Israel to obey every point of the law and yet they did not have the ability to do that, but nevertheless were justlly condemned for not doing that.

Hence, here is a clear Biblical case of obligation without ability but yet just condemnation for failure..

The fallacy 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.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Skandelon]

The fallacy of this argument is also revealed by simply looking at the ACTUAL purpose of the Law rather than the perceived purpose of the Law from the perspective of Israel. This is revealed by answering some simple questions:

1. Can anyone attain righteousness through keeping the law?
2. Was the purpose of the Law to attain righteousness in the first place? If not, what was it's purpose?
3. How can man attain righteousness, if not through the law?
4. Is proof that man cannot attain righteousness through law keeping also proof that man cannot attain righteousness through other gracious means set forth by God in scripture? If so, why?
5. Are their people in heaven and in hell who broke the laws of God? If so, what is the distinction between those finally condemned to Hell and those granted entrance into Heaven? What does that difference tell us about what actually condemns a man?

 

[Sapper Woody]

It was the obligation of Israel to obey every point of the law and yet they did not have the ability to do that, but nevertheless were justlly condemned for not doing that.

Hence, here is a clear Biblical case of obligation without ability but yet just condemnation for failure.

How do Arminians justify that God could obligate and condemn men to keep the law sinlesslessly whom he knew were competely unable to do so???

We justify it by our intepretation of Romans 5:12 where all man kind existed and consisted and acted in one person - Adam - willfully forfeiting that ability by sin.

Remember, some on this forum have argued on the basis of the term "response-able" that God cannot condemn anyone for what they are not able to perform.

They weren't condemned for their inability to keep the law. If your argument is correct, then no one from Moses until Christ is in Heaven. They couldn't be justified through the law, or saved by the sacrifices. They were saved by faith, same as today.

Just like now, there were people who obeyed the law as much as possible, sacrificed what they needed to, and still ended up in Hell. It wasn't about the law or sacrifices. It was about faith that the Messiah would come and make the ultimate sacrifice for their sins. If they were trusting in a physical lamb, then they ended up in Hell. If they trusted in God's promise, they were saved.

 

[Skandelon]

Just like now, there were people who obeyed the law as much as possible, sacrificed what they needed to, and still ended up in Hell. It wasn't about the law or sacrifices. It was about faith...

RIGHT!!! And that is what the law was sent to teach us. It was never intended as a means for us to attain righteousness, thus to point to our inability to attain righteousness through it is fallacious. "The righteous will live by faith."

 

[The Biblicist]

The fallacy of this argument is also revealed by simply looking at the ACTUAL purpose of the Law rather than the perceived purpose of the Law from the perspective of Israel. This is revealed by answering some simple questions:

1. Can anyone attain righteousness through keeping the law?
2. Was the purpose of the Law to attain righteousness in the first place? If not, what was it's purpose?
3. How can man attain righteousness, if not through the law?
4. Is proof that man cannot attain righteousness through law keeping also proof that man cannot attain righteousness through other gracious means set forth by God in scripture? If so, why?
5. Are their people in heaven and in hell who broke the laws of God? If so, what is the distinction between those finally condemned to Hell and those granted entrance into Heaven? What does that difference tell us about what actually condemns a man?

Your arguments are completely false. The purpose of the Law is to reveal their INABILITY of which they are justly condemned. Apart from that purpose there would be no need for salvation or a Savior.

Animal sacrfices, and indeed the sacrifice of Christ are CONSEQUENTIAL to not causal in relationship to TOTAL INABILITY but simply reinforce TOTAL INABILITY as there would be no need for the sacrificial system at all if not for TOTAL INABILITY.

You have no answer that can justify God's condemnation of their TOTAL INABILITY to keep the Law.

 

[Revmitchell]

It was the obligation of Israel to obey every point of the law and yet they did not have the ability to do that, but nevertheless were justlly condemned for not doing that.

Hence, here is a clear Biblical case of obligation without ability but yet just condemnation for failure.

Where does scripture say that this can be applied this way? And where does scripture say that men cannot or could not keep the law sinlessly or lacked the ability. ( not saying it doesn't I just want to see your clear scriptural case)

How do Arminians justify that God could obligate and condemn men to keep the law sinlessly whom he knew were completely unable to do so???

I don't know how they do it, But what I know from scripture is that the law was our schoolmaster to show us that we are sinners in need of a Savior (Galatians 3:24) Its intent was never to prove obligation without ability.

We justify it by our intepretation of Romans 5:12 where all man kind existed and consisted and acted in one person - Adam - willfully forfeiting that ability by sin.

Which is another passage that was never intended to be used in that manner. That is not the context of that passage. It is simply there to show that as sin came into the world by one man it is resolved by one man.

 

[The Biblicist]

They weren't condemned for their inability to keep the law.

You are failing to grasp the absolute essentials of the atonement. The atonement is designed to satisfy THREE ESSENIALS demanded by the Law.

1. The essential of Righteosness that satisfies the Standard demanded by the Law.

2. The essential of Penalization for coming short, violating the standard of the Law.

3. The essential Standard of righteousness demanded by the Law - the glory of God or the righteousness of God - which is sinlessness.

These three essentials could only be satisfied by the LIFE and DEATH of Jesus Christ as Christ "knew no sin" and "did not sin" and "neither was sin found in him" but he was the SPOTLESS lamb of God thus satisfying the righteous standard of the Law - sinless perfection.

The Death of Christ satisfied the eternal penalty of the Law

You must first grasp these three essentials before you can proceed to deal with man's obligation to keep that standard or suffer the just condemnation for coming short of that standard. The whole sacrificial system with its antitype are CONSEQUENTIAL to the fact that Israel was OBLIGATED to keep that standard and yet God knew fully well they had NO ABILITY to do so, but yet are justly condemned for not doing so.

If your argument is correct, then no one from Moses until Christ is in Heaven. They couldn't be justified through the law, or saved by the sacrifices. They were saved by faith, same as today

Your argument is based upon complete distortion of my position. I have never said one must be saved or justified by keeping the Law. I have never advocated justification by works. My argument is in regard to obligation not to sin or face just condemnation even though you are without ability to fulfill that obligation. Your system cannot justify that principle as your system denies condemnation for what you are unable to do.

 

[BobRyan]

Your arguments are completely false. The purpose of the Law is to reveal their INABILITY

the Law reveals the violation history of the lost and the fact that they cannot comply with it apart from the Gospel.

Thus there is a way of escape - where compliance is possible.

There is no "unreasonable God" theory supported in the Bible where God simply sticks you in an impossible situation leaves you there and roasts you for being in a situation where He simply does not care about you.

The entire Calvinist model is without support in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

Where does scripture say that this can be applied this way? And where does scripture say that men cannot or could not keep the law sinlessly or lacked the ability. ( not saying it doesn't I just want to see your clear scriptural case)

1. Would you agree God commanded Israel to keep the Law? Do have to provide scripture for this point? I can, but do I have to?

2. Would you agree that obedience to the Law must be defined by God's standard rather than yours or mine? For example, James 2:10-11 sets forth God's standard for obedience and disobedience to the Law.

3. Would you agree that fallen man does not have ability to keep every point of the law? If not, then why do we need Jesus?

4. Would you agree God is nevertheless just in condemning men for coming short of that standard? Do I have to provide scriptures to prove this point? I can? But do I have to?

A major argument presented by Arminians is that God cannot justldy condemn men for what they are unable to do. Even though Romans 8:7 spells out in the clearest terms and grammatical evidences what the fallen nature "IS" by nature and spells out total inaiblity "neither indeed can be" in regard to God's Law ("not subject to the Law) yet Arminians deny God can justly condemn man for what he cannot do!

Their argument is not biblical, as it is clear that God obligates Israel under the threat of just condemnation to keep God's stanard of obedience to the law when he knows fully well they are not able to do so nor can any human outside of Jesus Christ.

To argue that the cross enables them or sacrificial offerings enable them is placing the cart before the horse as there would be no need of the cross if they were able to keep that obligation in the first place.

 

[BobRyan]

Your arguments are completely false. The purpose of the Law is to reveal their INABILITY of which they are justly condemned. Apart from that purpose there would be no need for salvation or a Savior.

Animal sacrfices, and indeed the sacrifice of Christ are CONSEQUENTIAL to not causal in relationship to TOTAL INABILITY

The "way of escape" through the Gospel begins with mankind outside of the Garden of Eden - one sin committed - Gospel in place.

God never said "because I have unreasonable demands that do not work even in the way of escape I provide via the Gospel" and I think both sides can agree to that much.

Thus for all humanity starting with Adam and Eve - the way of escape - a way to comply with God's Word was made available.

Not because we are sinless - but because having been justified and made a "new creation" we are enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit to do what 1John 2:1-8 says we are to do as saints.

Since God made this way of escape starting with Adam (and since Enoch obvious was among the saved saints of the OT) it can be concluded that this world-wide reach of God extends to down to this very day.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You are failing to grasp the absolute essentials of the atonement. The atonement is designed to satisfy THREE ESSENIALS demanded by the Law.

1. The essential of Righteosness that satisfies the Standard demanded by the Law.

2. The essential of Penalization for coming short, violating the standard of the Law.

3. The essential Standard of righteousness demanded by the Law - the glory of God or the righteousness of God - which is sinlessness.

These three essentials could only be satisfied by the LIFE and DEATH of Jesus Christ as Christ "knew no sin" and "did not sin" and "neither was sin found in him" but he was the SPOTLESS lamb of God thus satisfying the righteous standard of the Law - sinless perfection.

The Death of Christ satisfied the eternal penalty of the Law

In God's model for Atonement "The Day of Atonement" in Lev 16 the life and death of Christ are depicted in the selection of the "Lord's Goat" a spotless victim that is slain as "the sin offering". So that is Lev 16:15.

The scope for the Bible concept of "Atonement" also includes vs 15-32 the work of Christ as High Priest. (Which is why we do not have universalism - even though we have a once-for-all completed atoning sacrifice at the cross).

But in the High Priestly work of Christ we have victory over sin - not merely the covering for the past - but the new creation "we have been RAISED with him" Romans 6 and in that work of Christ we are freed from slavery to sin - to sinning.

Thus the 1Cor 10 statement that Paul makes about victory over sin that is made available to the saints - through Christ,

There is no "unreasonable God demands" in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

1. Would you agree God commanded Israel to keep the Law? Do have to provide scripture for this point? I can, but do I have to?

2. Would you agree that obedience to the Law must be defined by God's standard rather than yours or mine? For example, James 2:10-11 sets forth God's standard for obedience and disobedience to the Law.

3. Would you agree that fallen man does not have ability to keep every point of the law? If not, then why do we need Jesus?

4. Would you agree God is nevertheless just in condemning men for coming short of that standard? Do I have to provide scriptures to prove this point? I can? But do I have to?

A major argument presented by Arminians is that God cannot justldy condemn men for what they are unable to do. Even though Romans 8:7 spells out in the clearest terms and grammatical evidences what the fallen nature "IS" by nature and spells out total inaiblity "neither indeed can be" in regard to God's Law ("not subject to the Law) yet Arminians deny God can justly condemn man for what he cannot do!

Their argument is not biblical, as it is clear that God obligates Israel under the threat of just condemnation to keep God's stanard of obedience to the law when he knows fully well they are not able to do so nor can any human outside of Jesus Christ.

To argue that the cross enables them or sacrificial offerings enable them is placing the cart before the horse as there would be no need of the cross if they were able to keep that obligation in the first place.

Those who argue that the sacrificial system provides a way out are placing the cart before the horse because the whole sacrificial system would be completely unnecessary if fallen man were capable of keeping the law according to God's definition of keeping the law - James 2:10 - without failure in one point as it only takes one point to COMPLETELY FAIL. There is no need for Christ or a sacrificial system if fallen man had ability to keep the law.

So to argue according to something that is POST-defacto is absurd and irrational

 

[BobRyan]

1. Would you agree God commanded Israel to keep the Law? Do have to provide scripture for this point? I can, but do I have to?

2. Would you agree that obedience to the Law must be defined by God's standard rather than yours or mine? For example, James 2:10-11 sets forth God's standard for obedience and disobedience to the Law.

3. Would you agree that fallen man does not have ability to keep every point of the law? If not, then why do we need Jesus?

4. Would you agree God is nevertheless just in condemning men for coming short of that standard? Do I have to provide scriptures to prove this point? I can? But do I have to?

Agreed. But He is just in that scenario precisely because He provides the way of escape of 1Cor 10.

The "unreasonable God" idea is not found in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

Those who argue that the sacrificial system provides a way out are placing the cart before the horse because the whole sacrificial system would be completely unnecessary if fallen man were capable of keeping the law according to God's definition of keeping the law - James 2:10 - without failure in one point as it only takes one point to COMPLETELY FAIL. There is no need for Christ or a sacrificial system if fallen man had ability to keep the law.

So to argue according to something that is POST-defacto is absurd and irrational

A way of escape would be unnecessary IF Adam did not fall and if fallen mankind were able to obey the Law. To argue from a Post-defacto position is irrational as this is attempting to make a consequence preventive of the cause and that is absurd.

God can justly condemn fallen man for violating His law even though they are UNABLE to keep it as commanded - James 2:10. He can justly do this because the totality of human nature existed and consisted in ONE MAN and acted in UNISON as ONE MAN in willfully forfeiting man's PRE-FALLEN SINLESS state justly falling into total depravity and total inability as explicitly defined by Romans 8:7-8 by the terms and grammar.

 

[Revmitchell]

1. Would you agree God commanded Israel to keep the Law? Do have to provide scripture for this point? I can, but do I have to?

You failed to grasp my point. I did not ask for scripture to prove Israel should keep the law. I asked for scripture to prove your particular application of Israel keeping the law ie obligation without ability.

 

[The Biblicist]

You failed to grasp my point. I did not ask for scripture to prove Israel should keep the law. I asked for scripture to prove your particular application of Israel keeping the law ie obligation without ability.

If you do not object to their obligation to keep the law, then what does the conclusion "there is none that doeth good" mean to you in regard to that obligation? In other words, can you cite a single sinner ABLE to fulfil that obligation? Romans 8:7 explicitly states concerning the carnal mind, not concerning the new man or the spiritual mind, that it "is not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be"! That is the only Biblical explanation why there can be NO FLESH found that is ABLE to keep that obligation (Rom. 3:12-20). That is total inability stated clearly in direct relationship to the Law of God is it not?

 

[Revmitchell]

If you do not object to their obligation to keep the law, then what does the conclusion "there is none that doeth good" mean to you in regard to that obligation? In other words, can you cite a single sinner ABLE to fulfil that obligation? Romans 8:7 explicitly states concerning the carnal mind, not concerning the new man or the spiritual mind, that it "is not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be"! That is the only Biblical explanation why there can be NO FLESH found that is ABLE to keep that obligation (Rom. 3:12-20). That is total inability stated clearly in direct relationship to the Law of God is it not?

You have a problem here because total inability would also have to mean that they can never do one thing to keep any part of the law. So are you suggesting that each individual never once kept any single part of the law? In other words they always and in every single moment broke every single ;aw and never once kept any of them at all?

 

[The Biblicist]

You have a problem here because total inability would also have to mean that they can never do one thing to keep any part of the law.

Do you accept the Biblical definition that to disobey in ONE POINT is to disobey in ALL POINTS? It seems you are rejecting that definition of obedience or what consittutes "good" in God's sight?

So let me ask you, if you disobey ONE POINT and God defines that as disobedience to EVERY POINT of the Law then how can you keep any point at all unless you keep EVERY POINT as well??????? Can you name any other human but Christ that can or that did?

Isn't that exactly the condemnation spelled out on the "whole world" in Romans 3:9-20?????

 

[agedman]

I have been considering your statements, but question certain wording of your points.

In God's model for Atonement "The Day of Atonement" in Lev 16 the life and death of Christ are depicted in the selection of the "Lord's Goat" a spotless victim that is slain as "the sin offering". So that is Lev 16:15.

The work on the "day of atonement" is perhaps better considered as the day of propitiation. For it was the shedding of blood that started the work of atonement. On the Cross, the shedding of blood was the start of the work of redemption.

The scope for the Bible concept of "Atonement" also includes vs 15-32 the work of Christ as High Priest. (Which is why we do not have universalism - even though we have a once-for-all completed atoning sacrifice at the cross).

Christ as "high priest" was the one offering the sacrifice not the sacrifice itself, though He was the sacrifice.

Remember after in the garden He stated, "Don't touch me..." But, what then of the "work of the High priest." John calls that work "advocate."

But in the High Priestly work of Christ we have victory over sin - not merely the covering for the past - but the new creation "we have been RAISED with him" Romans 6 and in that work of Christ we are freed from slavery to sin - to sinning.

I am not certain that Romans 6 is presenting that we have "victory over sin," but that we die to sin. That is, just as Christ died in our place taking on the sins of us, and not only us, but the whole of humankind from the beginning to the last, the believer must also die to the fleshly and be enslaved to God.

We are to "present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God."

Christ being the sacrifice, we are to be like Aaron, who did not present himself that day unwashed and in old filthy garments, but clean and with the appropriate robing.

Thus the 1Cor 10 statement that Paul makes about victory over sin that is made available to the saints - through Christ,

There is no "unreasonable God demands" in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

Here again, you place the victory as some accomplishment that redeem have available. See, what Paul said, "Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness." So, where is the "victory over sin" that you cite?

Christ paid in full the sin debt of all humankind for all time(s). (1 John 2)

What then is left? The same as was neglected by the "examples" that Paul discussed in 1 Cor.

The reconciliation (the true meaning of atonement) and throughout the OT that was that part of redemption that was missing and why "most ... were laid low." Not that God was reconciled to man (for that can not be) but that man must be reconciled to God.

That the "most" were not reconciled to God is why they were "laid low."

The question then is, "Why were they not reconciled?" Because they loved darkness rather than light. The attempted to hide from the light for fear the light would expose their evil.