This verse has reference to one whose life, centered and dominated by the flesh, is thereby unable to please God
by means of obedience to the law. However, nothing is stated regarding any depravity to the point of a natural inability to turn to God in repentance and faith. Please note my statement reads, “Nowhere does the clear teaching of Scripture state that man cannot…
choose to believe God.”
Nothing is said here about any kind of depravity that leaves one without ability whatsoever to repent and believe. All that’s said here is that all men are sinners and, in
poetic style, quotes from the OT a sampling of what is characteristic of man as a sinner.
All that is stated is that access and “approach of the soul to God is initiated by God.” See
Robertson Word Pictures. There is nothing here with reference to any inability in the sinner to repent and believe, which he is everywhere commanded of sinners in the New Testament.
Again, no mention is made of any depravity to the point of a natural inability in man as a sinner to come to God in repentance and faith. What is stated in these verses is that (1) Jesus was aware of those who would choose not to believe His teachings (vs. 45), and (2) access to Christ for salvation is a gift granted by God (but only to those who receive the teachings of God; see vs. 45; 59-61).
Man is totally depraved and that sin affects even his will. God does not even have free will as you define it.
If one declares Scripture speaks for itself and that they are only saying what Scripture says, then the interpretation of a text should not go beyond, as Larry has done in his above explanations, what is clearly stated.
Man’s part in salvation????…
It is quite clear in the Bible that salvation is conditional, though not meritorious, and as such, man has a part in his own salvation and I dare say the salvation of others.
BY Nelson: Larry seems to imply that (a) all sin and evil is attributable to God, and (b) God actually commits or, at the least, is an active participant in the sin and evil.
by Larry: Not at all. This has been asked and answered repeatedly. If you need clarification, go back and read what I have previously posted (not what you posted about my post). I have been clear about it and I have not changed.
As has been clarified repeatedly, it does not read “Larry says” but “Larry
seems to imply.” The point being made is that Larry’s statements can reasonably lead one to conclude that God authors and commits sin. Such was discussed in my post, dated 1/1/02 at 10:58 PM and on 1/3/02 at 12:46 AM, in response to Larry’s dated 1/1/02 at 3:39 PM and 1/2/02 at 9:28 PM respectively.
You read way too much into “do.” You have constructed an elaborate argument based on your desire to misunderstand what I said.
Larry has emphasized that he is very careful with his wording. My argument is based on what he has stated and how he stated it.
“Do” means “to perform an action; to finish; to cause.” Evidently, if there is a misunderstanding, it is not because there is any “desire to misunderstand.”
by Nelson: I find it a mystery why God, being absolute good, would commit or actively participate in rape at all!
by Larry: Subtle attempts at changing my words. I never said this and you know it. If you continue to misrepresent people, I will begin to edit.
No “subtle attempt” at misrepresentation is being submitted here. See above regarding comments on the word “do”.
In reviewing aforementioned posts Larry seeks to demonstrate that God is neither passive nor reactive in “working all things” including sin and evil. He states that the word “work” is an “active” verb that clearly teaches control, not reaction and that to work all things is to bring about or to effect. If Larry is correct, then God’s
active participation is clearly expressed; it shows what God
does and not what He reacts to. As such, God is not a mere, passive spectator to a rape.
To follow your argument through, it must be hard for you to reconcile the goodness of God when he allows the death of 7 children when he could do something about it. All the examples we talked about before of explicit statements of Scripture where God ordained something that you don’t like him to ordain – those must be terribly hard for you to reconcile.
It is necessary, at this point, to make a clarification. If by evil, one means tragedy, then it is possible, God caused the tragedy. That some tragedy is attributable to God cannot be denied and does not impugn His nature. The plagues of Egypt are an obvious example. Larry’s example above can fall under that category wherein not only can it be rightly interpreted that God may have permitted it but he may have had a hand in it (though I do not go so far as to say it was necessarily preordained).
However, if by “evil” sin is meant, God can is in no way be involved with it as far as either ordaining or preordaining it (except by permission) or participating in it. My example, the rape of a child, falls under this category. This view of evil as sin is the focus of discussion although I had made no distinctions previously. Please note, in some posts I have attempted to make this distinction by stating “sin and evil”.
It may be hard to reconcile God’s goodness in light of many evils defined as tragedy, which He could have prevented, however, it is neither impossible in every case nor is every tragedy His doing. Furthermore, depending upon the nature of the tragedy, in some cases the reason why God did not prevent it is reasonably reconcilable.
On the other hand, it is Biblically unacceptable, an insult to His character, and a violation of common sense to promote God as ordaining sin, especially as Larry explains it, and, afterwards or in the face of it, declare that God is good. The interpretations made to Ephesians 1:11 are a clear example of misrepresenting the clear wording and intent of the Biblical texts. Where it states God
works, it is wrongly interpreted to mean God
wills.
As such, Larry’s position, I reiterate, is the more tenuous.
These abilities to reject and choose were never removed from the definition of “free will.” They were never there. Free will has never included the ability to choose contrary to one’s nature. Just as God cannot choose to sin; so unregenerate man cannot choose to be righteous.
It seems Larry misunderstands the concept of free will and it’s relation to human nature. Choosing between two opposing choices is not choosing “contrary to one’s nature.” Everyday people choose between competing moral and non-moral choices and to cite examples is superfluous. It is inherent in man and not against his nature to choose between
competing choices.
A dog also has no free will and cannot believe God since it is not in its nature to do so. A dog can only choose what is inherent in its nature to choose and those choices it makes have no bearing at all on morality or ethics. A dog is not condemned for disobeying God’s Law or for not believing in God. God cannot condemn a dog to hell for committing what to us is a moral evil.
If a man cannot believe in God because it is his nature not to believe, then he cannot be held morally accountable for not believing. If he sins because his nature requires that he do nothing but sin and it is impossible for him to choose repentance and faith in God because it is contrary to his nature, then God cannot and will not hold him accountable for either sin or unbelief.
If such is the case as Larry presents it, man is in the same relation to God as is the dog.
An observation: If a dead man cannot believe, it should be important to remind ourselves that a dead man cannot
not believe either.
This will be your final warning. Continued comments like this will get you edited and eventually banned. There is no need to slander others with accusations that have clearly and continuously be shown to be misrepresentations. I have been pretty lenient this far but I will be no longer. If you wish to address the issues then do so; otherwise read along silently.
It is unfortunate that an offense was taken. I cannot admit to having made any misrepresentations and no intent to slander was made (nor can it be construed) in my "imagine" remark.
However, in his response of February 09, 2002 10:39 AM, Larry read way too much into “imagine” and has constructed an argument based on a desire to discredit the opposing view. My only purpose was to show that Larry's position could reasonably lead one to conclusions that would make God the author of sin.
Concerning what Larry can imagine, I have not stated that was what he actually believes. On the contrary, where Larry has previously stated that I said he believed God is evil or commits sin, I corrected him by demonstrating that was not the case nor can it be shown by any of my posts that it is. However, it was admitted that the views Larry holds could be reasonably interpreted as God being the author of sin and, as such, lead others to the same conclusion. There is no misrepresentation of his stated position.
Furthermore, it has not been explained (except by mere assertions similar to the present one above) by the offended party
where and how specific misrepresentations of the stated position have occurred.
Please note that "imagine" means "to make a mental image". Such a mental image may be taken from reality. For example, I can imagine David killing Goliath. It can, admittedly, also be an image from what is not reality, for example, Goliath killing David. However, as mentioned earlier, the basis of what I imagined is scriptural (i.e. based upon reality) with no intent to prove the validity of my position via the imagination.
Therefore, because I believe that scripture shows the sinner resisting God's final judgment, I stated what I could not imagine.
By the same token, since Larry views God as ordaining "all things," which necessarily include sin and evil, I only stated what
seems possible for him to imagine based upon his past statements (for example, post dated posted January 01, 2002 at 3:39 PM ), and from clear and reasonable implications derived therein.
[ March 12, 2002, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Nelson ]