Obligation with ability

[Skandelon]

Yeah, he simply cannot grasp the obvious and so we repeat it over and over and over again.

Oh, I just saw this. What is it that I can't grasp? And why can't I grasp it do you suppose?

Too bad God just didn't make me as bright as you, huh? It just cracks me up when determinists can't even be consistent within their own system. Do you all really think it helps to belittle people who your system teaches are only doing what God has preordained for them to do in order to bring Him the most glory? Really? How inconsistent can you be?

 

[The Biblicist]

Oh, I just saw this. What is it that I can't grasp? And why can't I grasp it do you suppose?

You do not grasp that God can demand what fallen man is without ability to do and justly condemn him for it.

Too bad God just didn't make me as bright as you, huh?

I would never claim I was "brighter" or more educated than you. This has nothing to do with "brightness"! Indeed, that is most likely the foundation of your problem - too much rationalization. It has to do with proper understanding that comes with illumination which is a matter of grace and therefore nothing to boast in.

It just cracks me up when determinists can't even be consistent within their own system. Do you all really think it helps to belittle people who your system teaches are only doing what God has preordained for them to do in order to bring Him the most glory? Really? How inconsistent can you be?

The only contradiction is found in the straw man system errected in your mind that you falsely attribute to us.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist

You do not grasp that God can demand what fallen man is without ability to do and justly condemn him for it.

I would never claim I was "brighter" or more educated than you. This has nothing to do with "brightness"! Indeed, that is most likely the foundation of your problem - too much rationalization. It has to do with proper understanding that comes with illumination which is a matter of grace and therefore nothing to boast in.
The only contradiction is found in the straw man system erected in your mind that you falsely attribute to us.

He gets frustrated in that his own reasoning creates a web that he cannot escape.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

You do not grasp that God can demand what fallen man is without ability to do and justly condemn him for it.

I used to believe it and teach it, why do you suppose I cannot grasp it now in my discussions with you? Are you one of those who thinks that in order for someone to understand a concept they must believe it to be true?

I would never claim I was "brighter" or more educated than you. This has nothing to do with "brightness"! Indeed, that is most likely the foundation of your problem - too much rationalization. It has to do with proper understanding that comes with illumination which is a matter of grace and therefore nothing to boast in.

Like I alluded to in my last post...the only reason that I don't accept this concept is either because it isn't, and I've made the correct assessment, or because God determined for me not to 'get it' and I'm only wrong because God chose not to grant me what I needed to accept this teaching, and he did this to bring Himself the most amount of glory. Either way, I feel like I'm in the clear on this one. :wavey:

The only contradiction is found in the straw man system errected in your mind that you falsely attribute to us.

I'd be interested to know what exactly I stated was 'misrepresentative' of your beliefs. Blanket generalized accusations of 'strawman fallacy' aren't helpful without a explanation as to why you feel misrepresented.

I stated, "your system teaches [people] are only doing what God has preordained for them to do in order to bring Him the most glory..." Is that untrue? If so, how so?

 

[The Biblicist]

I used to believe it and teach it, why do you suppose I cannot grasp it now in my discussions with you? Are you one of those who thinks that in order for someone to understand a concept they must believe it to be true?

When I first placed the example of the Law before you and said you did not believe this, you challenged me to find any post where you denied this. Now, you claim you don't believe it. Which is it?

I stated, "your system teaches [people] are only doing what God has preordained for them to do in order to bring Him the most glory..." Is that untrue? If so, how so?

My "system" distinguishes between God's will in regard to sin versus God's will in regard to what He delights to be done. Your representation of my system completely ignores that and distorts that. I have pointed out on other threads on this forum now being discussed where you distort my system. I don't know of many instances where you attempted to express what you think I believe has ever been correct.

 

[Skandelon]

When I first placed the example of the Law before you and said you did not believe this, you challenged me to find any post where you denied this. Now, you claim you don't believe it. Which is it?

Huh?

I used to believe like you. When I was a Calvinists I attempted to make the same arguments you are making now, but obviously my views have changed and I no longer accept these views. I was a Calvinistic prior to 2003, not while in my discussion with you. Does that clear up this confusion, because for the life of me I can't discern what you are asking.

My "system" distinguishes between God's will in regard to sin versus God's will in regard to what He delights to be done. Your representation of my system completely ignores that and distorts that. I have pointed out on other threads on this forum now being discussed where you distort my system. I don't know of many instances where you attempted to express what you think I believe has ever been correct.

Are you referring to the 'two wills of God' view as outlined by John Piper HERE?

I'm not sure how that explanation denies my representation of your view above. Maybe you could explain?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Huh?

I used to believe like you. When I was a Calvinists I attempted to make the same arguments you are making now, but obviously my views have changed and I no longer accept these views. I was a Calvinistic prior to 2003, not while in my discussion with you. Does that clear up this confusion, because for the life of me I can't discern what you are asking.


Are you referring to the 'two wills of God' view as outlined by John Piper HERE?

I'm not sure how that explanation denies my representation of your view above. Maybe you could explain?

From what I have learned, John Piper has strong leanings towards Fuller Theology. Therefore, unless shown otherwise....I take anything he says with a grain of salt.

 

[The Biblicist]

Huh?

Don't you recall that when I provided the case of the Law, where God obligated Israel to keep it when God knew fully well they were totally unable to keep it and yet justly condemned them for failing to keep it? At that time I charged you with denying that Biblical based factual reality and denying that God can justly condemn what man could not do. Indeed, I charged that this had been your argument against me as long as I could remember. You challenged me to find a single post where you denied this. Now you admit that you deny it but only acknowledge it when you were a calvinist. So which is it?

In regard to the permissive will versus God's will of delight I don't care to detour again into that discussion. The bottom line is that whenever you deal with my "system" you represent my "system" as making God the author of sin which might be YOUR VIEW of my system but it is certainly not MY VIEW of my own system. I believe YOUR VIEW of my system which you consistently READ INTO what you say I BELIEVE is based solely upon misrepresentation of the facts as well as my viewpoint.

I will say this. I would much rather discuss these issues with you than any other Arminian on this forum. You are much more reasonable and objective than the others. I have just decided to drop all discussion with the others because it always digresses more quickly.

 

[Skandelon]

Don't you recall that when I provided the case of the Law, where God obligated Israel to keep it when God knew fully well they were totally unable to keep it and yet justly condemned them for failing to keep it? At that time I charged you with denying that Biblical based factual reality and denying that God can justly condemn what man could not do. Indeed, I charged that this had been your argument against me as long as I could remember. You challenged me to find a single post where you denied this. Now you admit that you deny it but only acknowledge it when you were a calvinist. So which is it?

What I denied is the assertions that God COULD NOT justly condemn law breakers. He could. I'm debating if he WOULD based on what we know from biblical revelation. That may seem like a small distinction from your perspective but its a big one from ours because we aren't attempting to argue that God owes us grace. He didn't have to provide the 'good news' to off set the 'bad news.' He didn't have to send his Son, or the gospel truth. He could have condemned us all.

Secondly, you were accusing me of not understanding your view, but I was saying that I not only understand it, but I used to believe it.

Thirdly, I now believe that men are condemned only for their unbelief (as explained). The LAW was never given for the purpose of attaining righteousness, thus how can one stand condemned by the law UNLESS they choose to stay under it by trading the truth of God in for lies and refusing to accept God's clear revelation? Men are condemned because they remain in unbelief, period.

In regard to the permissive will versus God's will of delight I don't care to detour again into that discussion. The bottom line is that whenever you deal with my "system" you represent my "system" as making God the author of sin which might be YOUR VIEW of my system but it is certainly not MY VIEW of my own system. I believe YOUR VIEW of my system which you consistently READ INTO what you say I BELIEVE is based solely upon misrepresentation of the facts as well as my viewpoint.

I will say this. I would much rather discuss these issues with you than any other Arminian on this forum. You are much more reasonable and objective than the others. I have just decided to drop all discussion with the others because it always digresses more quickly.

And you likewise seem very educated in your views, which is nice.

And both sides will tend to misrepresent the others perspective, but you must remember that there are various approaches to these issues within your 'camp.' Just as there are in mine. We must be careful not to presume someone is intentionally misrepresenting, when in fact they may be coming at the same view from a different perspective. On the other side, we should also be gracious with each other in our attempt to help them see it from our point of view and understand that even our point of view MAY logically take one to a conclusion that one's system doesn't necessarily adopt as true. Both sides have these quandaries...I just happen to believe your side has many more than mine.

 

[The Biblicist]

What I denied is the assertions that God COULD NOT justly condemn law breakers. He could. I'm debating if he WOULD based on what we know from biblical revelation.

You can't be serious??? There is no question according to clear and explicit Bible precepts and declarations that God did in fact obligate man to keep what He knew fallen man could not keep and then condemned him for coming short. This is not even questionable as the clear precepts and declarations of scripture demand this is not what He "could" or "would" but actualy did and does presently.

1. Clear precepts command obedience to the law by fallen man

2. Clear precepts define what "keep" the law means?

3. Clear declarations of scripture deny any man kept the law as obligated

4. Clear declarations of scripture demand God condemns them.

This is not questionable. What is my point? My point is that the only possible justification for what God did and does is only found in the interpretation that all mankind existed and consisted in one human nature freely acting "response-ably" in ONE MAN - Adam. All men sinned as one human nature freely forfeiting their PRE-FALLEN STATE OF ABILITY TO REMAIN SINLESS by falling into the FALLEN STATE OF TOTAL INABILITY.


Deal with what I have said STRAIGHTFORWARD phrase by phrase rather than undermining it by addressing something found in YOUR SYSTEM of thought that you try to READ INTO my system of thought.

 

[Skandelon]

We are now discussing the exact same topic on multiple threads, which is getting confusing. I'll leave this topic for the other thread where I thorough just answered this issue.