Response-able??

[Skandelon]

The above quoted Scripture is in complete harmony with the words of Jesus:

“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

Yes, and through faith in Christ we can attain such perfection (righteousness). See my signature line below at this time...

 

[The Biblicist]

No one is suggesting they could. :laugh::laugh:

Ezekiel 18:31
Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel?

You are confusing duty with ability. For example it is your duty to observe the law without sin but if you had that ability you would never need a savior. However, that is your undisputed duty under Law as that is precisely what the Law requires of you. However, the law is designed to show us WHAT WE CANNOT DO even though it is our duty to obey it. In so doing, it reveals our INABILITY to do so.

Our loss of ability is not God's fault but our fault as we existed and acted as one human nature in Adam when he acted when were were response-able and thus when he sinned all mankind sinned because all mankind consisted and existed in Adam.

 

[webdog]

You didn’t hear either answer.

On the contrary, I 'read' both. Obfuscation is not an answer.

 

[Skandelon]

You are confusing duty with ability.

Oh, so when the bible states clearly something like, "Turn to God for healing..." it really means, "You can't turn to God so He will heal you anyway, if your lucky enough to be chosen."

If it says, "Humble yourself and you will be exalted," it really means, "You can't humble yourself, so if your a lucky one he will do it for you so as to exalt you."

Again, you are taking passages which clearly teach that righteousness cannot be attained by OUR OWN duty/works/law, to suggest that righteousness cannot be attained by faith/trust in another. That is biblically UNFOUNDED.

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."​

Do you see that question..."Why NOT?" If Paul were a Calvinist, he would have said, "Because they weren't chosen of God." But instead he answered with the truth: "Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works."

Again, your mistake is summarized below in my sig line...

 

[Skandelon]

You are confusing duty with ability. For example it is your duty to observe the law without sin but if you had that ability you would never need a savior.

I know I responded to this, but I wanted to add this...

Notice that what you state here perfectly illustrates the mistake I've been pointing out to you. You say, "it is your duty to observe the law without sin," which we both agree is impossible, then you rightly point out that is why "we need a savior." BUT all the while you think the former truth of our inability to avoid sin makes the work of the savior equally unattainable through faith.

You seem to think that proving its impossible to fulfill the law ourselves somehow proves that trusting the savior who fulfilled it for us is equally impossible. But scripture NEVER once states this...not once. The closest thing in scripture is regarding the blinding (sending a spirit of stupor/hiding the truth in parables) of Israel in order to accomplish redemption.

 

[webdog]

You seem to think that proving its impossible to fulfill the law ourselves somehow proves that trusting the savior who fulfilled it for us is equally impossible

.This cannot be overstated, and a great portion of our disagreements. If they could only see their position is extra biblical, that it is not impossible without another work of the Spirit beyond what He has already done, we would be that much closer to being in full accord.

 

[The Biblicist]

Oh, so when the bible states clearly something like, "Turn to God for healing..." it really means, "You can't turn to God so He will heal you anyway, if your lucky enough to be chosen."

You are reading your own conclusions into your illustrations and perverting what I am saying. You cannot answer the Biblical example I placed before you so you resort to ridicule. I will say this again, Israel was given the law of God and it was their DUTY to keep EVERY SINGLE LAW without fault. That cannot be denied. Neither can it be denied they lacked the ability to accomplish that DUTY. This DUTY demonstrated their INABILITY. Hence, you are wrong when you assert God does not demand of men what they cannot perform and this basic example of giving of the law to sinners proves that and you know it proves that and so your only alternative is to restort to ridicule.


The Fact that Israel was commanded to do what they were incapable of doing, what they had no ability to do, and yet were justly condemned by God for failing proves they had forfeited that ability in Adam, when the whole human race consisted and existed in one man and acted in unison as one man and thus forfeited ability to keep God's law as one man - Rom. 5:12.

 

[Protestant]

Oh, so when the bible states clearly something like, "Turn to God for healing..." it really means, "You can't turn to God so He will heal you anyway, if your lucky enough to be chosen."

If it says, "Humble yourself and you will be exalted," it really means, "You can't humble yourself, so if your a lucky one he will do it for you so as to exalt you."

Again, you are taking passages which clearly teach that righteousness cannot be attained by OUR OWN duty/works/law, to suggest that righteousness cannot be attained by faith/trust in another. That is biblically UNFOUNDED.

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."​

Do you see that question..."Why NOT?" If Paul were a Calvinist, he would have said, "Because they weren't chosen of God." But instead he answered with the truth: "Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works."

Again, your mistake is summarized below in my sig line...

Please note the verse you cite states precisely why they lacked faith: ‘They stumbled over the stumbling stone.’

Your sweeping assumption alleges that saving faith resides in all men and simply needs to be ‘called up’ at will by man at the appropriate time.

Some, by the power of their will, do so.

Others, who choose not to use that power, do not.

This is your conjecture.

However, the crucifixion of Jesus, the One over whom the Jews ‘stumbled’, proves that none in Israel had the power to not ‘stumble’ over Jesus unless the Lord had blessed them with the gift of faith.

Do you really believe that had you been in Israel you would have had the faith to stand grieving by His side at the cross rather than hurl insulting and mocking invectives?

The only reason we have saving faith is because the Lord decreed in eternity:

“I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me;
I was found by those who did not seek me.
To a nation that did not call on my name,
I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’ "

Without the Lord effectively causing men to seek Him and find Him…..without the Lord sovereignly revealing Himself, men will continue in a state of unbelief and denial until the day they die.

And yet despite all the biblical evidence which contradicts your suppositions you remain in denial insisting on lifting up and honoring the power of man to do that which is good in God’s sight.

 

[Protestant]

On the contrary, I 'read' both. Obfuscation is not an answer.

I may, on occasion 'ob', but I have never and will never 'fuscate.'

I find 'fuscating' personally repulsive.

 

[The Biblicist]

I know I responded to this, but I wanted to add this...

Notice that what you state here perfectly illustrates the mistake I've been pointing out to you. You say, "it is your duty to observe the law without sin," which we both agree is impossible, then you rightly point out that is why "we need a savior." BUT all the while you think the former truth of our inability to avoid sin makes the work of the savior equally unattainable through faith.

You are missing my point. I am simply proving the Bible does require something we are unable to provide. You have been consistently denying that is possible as you have argued that the very term "response-able" denies one can be held to account for what one is not able to do. This Biblical example proves you are wrong. On the basis of that indisputable proof, I then proceed to show that Romans 8:7-8 operates according to the very same principle, a principle you also denied and said was impossible or irrational based on the same argument about your definition of "response-able."

However, duty without ability is a Biblical based principle. The only possible justification for this principle is that all mankind forfeited that ability in one united human nature consisting and existing in one man - Rom. 5:12. This principle justifies my application of the same duty versus inaibity in regard to the fallen human nature and salvation.

Since you have admitted this principle in connection with the duty of observing the law sinlessly but complete inability to do so resulting in just condemntion then how do you justify that apart from - Romans 5:12 and the forfeiture of ability by the whole human nature consisting and acting in one man - Adam???? How do you justify just condemnation for this duty but without ability??????

 

[preacher4truth]

No one is suggesting they could. :laugh::laugh:

Actually you in fact do teach this:

Certainly scripture's demands for men to have faith implies the ability is inherent.

You've preached this all along, that the ability is within man. Scripture teaches men believe by the power of God and faith is not inherent. The view of Arminius and yourself has lead to much confusion and false doctrine about faith, WoF for instance.

Ezekiel 18:31
Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel?

God gives the new heart to those who confess (rid themselves of offense).

But you still clearly misunderstand 'not of yourselves' even to this day. Man cannot even confess without the power of God. This is not based upon man doing a thing within some inherent ability. We are dealing with supernatural and spiritual substance not carnal abilities.

Arminianism has done just this though, seeking to glory in what man has done, and, for the past several hundred years has turned the gift of eternal life into a reward. It's a humanistic doctrine plain and simple.

On our own? If you can find one quote from me in my decade of postings which states that we can do these things "ON OUR OWN" I'll resign this forum and log off forever...you will never have to put up with me again. Will you take that challenge? <anticipating the sound of crickets>

Crickets? Taunt away if that is who you are as a man. Clearly it has been presented by you that the ability is within man which is unScriptural ideology. If the ability is in man then God is not needed, he can do so on his own after hearing. But Scripture says we believe by the power of God, not because of inherent ability. It's monergistic, not synergistic.

I think your reply, or lack thereof, will reveal who doesn't 'get this.'

Quite the contrary.

Salvation is 100% God's doing and none of man, from beginning to end and by the same power that rose Christ from the dead.

 

[BobRyan]

You are confusing duty with ability. For example it is your duty to observe the law without sin but if you had that ability you would never need a savior. However, that is your undisputed duty under Law as that is precisely what the Law requires of you. However, the law is designed to show us WHAT WE CANNOT DO even though it is our duty to obey it. In so doing, it reveals our INABILITY to do so.

Our loss of ability is not God's fault but our fault as we existed and acted as one human nature in Adam when he acted when were were response-able and thus when he sinned all mankind sinned because all mankind consisted and existed in Adam.

Romans 8:6-8 says the saved CAN obey the Law of God - but the lost cannot. 1John 2:2 and Romans 6 and 1 John 3 make the same point.

We ask for forgiveness of sins even as saved saints but NEVER on the basis "God the Gospel provision you gave did not allow/enable me to survive/endure that temptation without sinning so I had to sin - please forgive me".

In fact 1 Cort 10 is clear "NO TEMPTATION has over taken you but SUCH as is common to man and GOD IS FAITHFUL who will not ALLOW you to be tempted beyond that which YOU ARE ABLE but will with the temptation provide the way of escape".

Thus the "unreasonable God" story fails even there.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

You are missing my point. I am simply proving the Bible does require something we are unable to provide. You have been consistently denying that is possible as you have argued that the very term "response-able" denies one can be held to account for what one is not able to do. This Biblical example proves you are wrong. On the basis of that indisputable proof, I then proceed to show that Romans 8:7-8 operates according to the very same principle, a principle you also denied and said was impossible or irrational based on the same argument about your definition of "response-able."

However, duty without ability is a Biblical based principle. The only possible justification for this principle is that all mankind forfeited that ability in one united human nature consisting and existing in one man - Rom. 5:12. This principle justifies my application of the same duty versus inaibity in regard to the fallen human nature and salvation.

Since you have admitted this principle in connection with the duty of observing the law sinlessly but complete inability to do so resulting in just condemntion then how do you justify that apart from - Romans 5:12 and the forfeiture of ability by the whole human nature consisting and acting in one man - Adam???? How do you justify just condemnation for this duty but without ability??????

To argue (as some do on this forum) ability from a post-defacto saved condition does not change the fact that God condemned mankind justlfy for failing to observe the Law according to His standard of obedence (James 2:10-11) knowing they were without ability to keep it according to that standard.

To argue that the law was not purposed to justify does not change the fact they were unable to keep it as commanded and yet justly condemned for what they were unable to do.

You have no other option but to recognize this (as you did) and no other justification than Romans 5:12-19 where the entire human nature existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN who willingly forfeited his PRE-FALLEN SINLESS CONDITION and fell into a state of complete inability to obey God's Law ("not subject to the Law of God and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE"). You have no other just basis for God commanding men in the face of condemnation for what they were not able to do!

 

[Skandelon]

Clearly it has been presented by you that the ability is within man which is unScriptural ideology. If the ability is in man then God is not needed, he can do so on his own after hearing. But Scripture says we believe by the power of God, not because of inherent ability. It's monergistic, not synergistic.
Quite the contrary.

Salvation is 100% God's doing and none of man, from beginning to end and by the same power that rose Christ from the dead.

I noticed that you didn't provide any quotes of mine suggesting that we have the power to save ourselves or that we can do these thing 'on our own.' I wonder why? Maybe because none exist?

You are either intentionally misrepresenting my view or very sadly misinformed. I've NEVER once suggested the power is in man, I've consistently and without fail taught that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation...actually I've just quoted it because Paul originally said it. I believe the gracious, powerful Holy Spirit wrought gospel of reconciliation enables a response. Which is almost identical to what many Calvinists believe (google 'gospel regeneration'), with the exception that I don't believe such grace is irresistibly applied (i.e. "effectual").

Now, if you'd like to actually engage my view instead of the strawman you have erected, I'm here.

 

[Protestant]

I do not believe it is accurate to call someone responsible who is not able to respond.

According to the humanist theory of ‘response-able’ proposed by our Arminian colleagues the Lord could not possibly require, by law, that which man is not able to do.

Thus, if God demands the law of faith, man must be able to comply, the Arminian argues.

After all, the Arminians complied.

Let’s take this supposition into the earthly realm.

Do our laws take into consideration man’s ability to obey them?

Let’s take the example of the San Diego mayor who harassed numerous female associates.

His excuse: I couldn’t help myself. I have a sickness which I cannot control.

Was he excused because of his inability to behave himself?

Of course not.

And what about the traffic speeder who was speeding?

His excuse: I have a need for speed.

Is he excused because of his inability to control his need?

Of course not.

Then there is the case of the serial murderer.

His excuse: I was abused and beaten as a child. As a result I had an uncontrollable urge to kill.

Is he excused because of his inability to control his need to kill?

Of course not.

CONCLUSION: If compliance to the law depended on ability to comply, then God would have to lower His standards.

But God refuses to lower His standards.

Therefore, knowing the sinful nature of man and its deleterious effects, our Lord has graciously met His perfect standards in Jesus Christ.

He is both the just and justifier.

Those Elect for whom Christ was sent as a penal substitute are effectually blessed with all the spiritual gifts and power necessary to meet the high standards and conditions required for salvation.

Included in those divine gifts is the supernatural spiritual gift of faith whose object is the perfect work and person of the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom God is well-pleased.

The ability to believe and to comply resides not in man naturally.

“ For it is God which worketh in you both to will [the will to believe] and [the power] to do of his good pleasure.”

 

[preacher4truth]

I noticed that you didn't provide any quotes of mine suggesting that we have the power to save ourselves or that we can do these thing 'on our own.' I wonder why? Maybe because none exist?

When you claim the ability is within man you do just that. The regenerate only believe by the power of God, not by some 'inherent faith' via your gospel.

That said we still see the errors that Arminius and his followers have brought to this world via the lie of free will and inherent ability, or 'faith' thus we have many dissident sects today.

Then we also have the fact that Arminius and his followers have turned the gift of eternal life into reward given only when man exercises said ability, as life is not given until he does so.

 

[preacher4truth]

Now, if you are talking about my specific break down of the word (response-able)...that is an obvious attempt on my part to reveal the root meaning of this word that some attempt to deny. I do not believe it is accurate to call someone responsible who is not able to respond. Even 'accountable' doesn't work to me because how does one give an account for another person's choice?

Yes, we get it. God's ways must succumb to the logic of skan or it simply cannot be, nor can it be 'fair' (just) because skan in his finite mind has thought and has said so.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, we get it. God's ways must succumb to the logic of skan or it simply cannot be, nor can it be 'fair' (just)

Since you are apparently on "that" subject.

[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by [FONT=&quot]The Biblicist[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Moses is addressing the NATION as the covenant at Mount Sinai was not made with individuals but with the NATION as a whole "all the people answered." It is the nation that agreed to this covenant. The nation as a whole was made up of individuals who did not have a heart for God's commandments at the time it was given and the Lord did not "give" them a heart from that time to Deuteronomy 29:4.

The only heart they had from the very point they agreed to the very day explicitly referred to in Deuteronomy 29:3 is a heart unable to "perceive and eyes to see and ears to ear UNTO THIS DAY"[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...05#post2060705[/FONT]

By contrast: God's "Appeal" and Lament

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ezek 18[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]30“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]31“Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]32“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and LIVE!" [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2Cor 5: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2 Peter 3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“He CAME to HIS OWN and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]His OWN received Him not[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” John 1[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Response: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Well the Calvinist would have an answer for God on that one. An answer contrived via “extreme inference” in places like Deut 5:29. Calvinism would inform the world – and God Himself of just what God did to cause the lamentable result that God is complaining about. If the result is wrong then Calvinism argues He did wrong - sabotaging His own plans or at the very least - being forgetful to "do the necessary" as the saying goes in India.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The elephant in Calvinism’s living room is that they make God the saboteur of His own Gospel plans for life and salvation – the cause of His own lament
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]– like a house wife with a broom lamenting as she stares at a pile of dirt that is not swept clean, crying out “what more could I have done!! Why are you still just sitting there unswept??”.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It appears to those watching Calvinism making such claims - that it is all counter intuitive - counter to the Word of God and based solely on incorrect "inferences" inserted into a text here or there.[/FONT]

 

[webdog]

Yes, we get it. God's ways must succumb to the logic of skan or it simply cannot be, nor can it be 'fair' (just) because skan in his finite mind has thought and has said so.

This is foolishness, plain and simple. Words have meanings, and Skan didn't create the word nor the meaning. Its much easier to personally attack a person than deal with their argument, something you have yet to do.

 

[preacher4truth]

This is foolishness, plain and simple. Words have meanings, and Skan didn't create the word nor the meaning. Its much easier to personally attack a person than deal with their argument, something you have yet to do.

Actually this was not a personal attack, it is hard, but it's not an attack, and as a matter of fact I've dealt with the subject at hand, so, I have in fact done what you're attempting to deny.

Whether you agree with what I've said or not it is nonetheless true. God doesn't fit into our logic, and that is the basis of skans statement, in essence if it doesn't make sense or seem fair or just then it cannot be of God. Therefore my answer stands and is on subject.

In addition my statement had nothing to do with the meaning of a word which brother shows you are missing the entire purpose and basis of my statement altogether.