Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
So, when Joshua challenged the people with the statement, "Choose you this day who you will serve," was he mistaken?
When you choose to serve the flesh/satan/world, isn't that sin?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Romans 8:8
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
So, when Joshua challenged the people with the statement, "Choose you this day who you will serve," was he mistaken?
When you choose to serve the flesh/satan/world, isn't that sin?
Your question is a good question. Failure to yeild to the Spirit can only be attributed to my own inherent weaknesses. In regard to righteousness, I am what I am by the grace of God and so I cannot take credit for that. My good works were before ordained by God to accomplish His ultimate purpose in my parituclar life (Eph. 2:10b). God has purposely given me, as he has every child of God, only a limited measure of grace and faith and equipped me to carry out a specific role in His overall purpose. My weaknesses have purposely not been removed but purposely included in my progressive sanctification. Only Christ was without measure of the Spirit. In the overall purpose of God my sanctification is purposedly designed by God to be only progressive rather than instanteous complete and therefore God has purposed to use sin in my life to accomplish His overall purpose for my life, as well as, to overrule it in the use of my own progressive growth and therefore He is working ALL THINGS according to His purpose. He could have instanteously made me sinless if He so chose, but He purposely did not choose to do so and so even my weaknesses and sin are purposely permitted by God for my ultimate good and His ultimate glory. In regard to justice, my weakness must be owned as my fault and not God's but any good works accomplished in my life must be attributed to God's grace rather than anything credited to me - for I am what I am by the grace of God.
Joshua place before the Children of Israel their DUTY but ability to acheive the correct response is purely of grace and not found in man. In contrast, sin is always within our range of ability as children of God and the only ability as lost human beings.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I emboldened two vital points in your response above. Allow me to restated them and see if we are understanding each other:
1. You first conclude about yourself: Failure to yeild to the Spirit can only be attributed to my own inherent weaknesses.
So, any time you sin, it is due only to your own weaknesses, not God's lack of provision. It's your failure to "yield" not His failure to provide some extra measure of grace or ability, right?
2. Secondly, you conclude about Israel: "...but ability to acheive the correct response is purely of grace and not found in man." Do you believe this is because the Israelites Joshua is addressing are not saved/regenerated like you? Or is this a contradiction to suggest that your sin is completely your failure (not God's lack of provision) while Israel's failure is actually due to God lack of gracious provision?
Do you understand my questions? You seem to suggest on the one hand that God provides YOU, a regenerate believer, all that YOU need to yield and avoid sin, though you may not do that (which is an example of provisional grace, not irresistible grace; and an example of contra-causal free will, btw). However, you also seem to suggest that God could not (or at least WOULD not) make such provisions for the lost, unregenerate non-believer.
Why do you suppose that is? Why do you think God would provide you the ability to yield and thus escape sin in any given situation that you are tempted, but not allow the lost man to yield, by the gracious provision of the gospel appeal empowered by the Holy Spirit, and thus escape his fallen, sinful condition?
By doing so, wouldn't God escape ANY accusation of culpability? And wouldn't that man truly have NO EXCUSES for his rebellion?
Please understand, for the same reason you can't blame God for your sin (because you COULD have done otherwise), the lost, unbelievers cannot blame God for their unbelief and rejection of the gospel appeal (because they COULD have done otherwise, they had all they needed). Understand my point?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
If God gives the lost no choice but to fail him and be at war with him - and if he is willing to brain-zap some of them into being Christian then He has only Himself to blame if ALL are not Christian -- in your model, and we should expect no "lament" on God's part "pretending" that he had "done everything for the wicked and STILL they refuse his purpose for them".
Impossible to miss.
Thus the thread on the "Lament of God - vs the Calvinist Gospel saboteur" exposes a key flaw in Calvinism.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=90797
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
That is a hard pill to swallow but I can't see how the Calvinist avoids swallowing it...I honestly cannot.
It also makes God seem disingenuous at best. Read this for example:
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. 9 This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.
According to Calvinism, Noah was only righteous because God 'zapped' him at some point, and neglected to do so for the rest of mankind, for whatever reason. So, we can only conclude that God's 'grief' was fake? Or just an act of sorts...because obviously He could have just zapped more people to make them like Noah and avoided the whole problem...
There are three essentials to understand this properly. My weaknesses is due to my own INABILITY, as I lost my ability when I acted volitionally against God's will while in Adam, as the whole of humanity acted in unison in Adam of which I was part. Hence, all I have of my own is total inability - as that is the flesh.
Second, the motive and desire to glorify God originates within the created new man but whatever is actually implemented into my life is wholly due to operating in the Spirit which is wholly due to the eternal purpose and power of God according to the measure of grace and faith, as well as spiritual gifts given me to accomplish only that which is in His purpose of grace for my life. Hence, I am what I am by the grace of God.
Third, what I acheive is purely by grace, and therefore undeserved of which God is not obligated at all to provide and will only provide within the boundaries of His use of me in keeping with His own eternal purpose (Eph. 2:10b).
So my failures are all my own and my successes are all of God and since God is not obligated to provide any more measure of grace and faith than His purpose requires then that leaves nothing else but my own inherent inability to accomplish anything other than that. Hence, God cannot be blamed for my failures (WHICH CAN ONLY BE OVERCOME BY HIS GRACE) since my failures are my own fault and God is not obligated to enable me to overcome them.
Thus again, I am what I am by the grace of God and NOTHING MORE.
Is it a catch 22? Yes, I am totally unable to perform what God demands is my obligation to perform apart from imparted grace but God is not obligated to impart any more grace than His eternal purpose for my life demands as I justly deserve my condition - so - again, I am what I am by the grace of God and God is perfectly just in condemning me for my inabilities BECAUSE I willfully forfeited my ability when I acted in unison with the whole human nature which existed and consisted in one man - Rom. 5:12.
Your problem is that you must admit this principle is Biblically valid as you fully admit that God demanded of Israel what Israel had no ability to perform - keep His law in all points as the violation of one point is sin - and yet be just in condemning their failure to do what he knew they could not do. You have no explanation to justify this apart from Israel existing and consisting in the whole of human nature that willfully forfeited their abiity to obey God's Law in the disobedience by one man - Adam - Rom. 5:12
Wow..... I have a very similar testimony. I credit any power to resist sin to the HS & I credit my salvation to the HS's Grace. The lifeline was thrown out when I was adrift far far away from the ship & by all rights, I should have gone under (thats the way I see it) ..... Gods blessing to you brother.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Yes indeed. It is impossible to picture God saying "What more could I have DONE??!!"" -- when all the time He knew exactly "what more was supposed to be don if the intent was obedience from mankind" under the Calvinist model.
In the Calvinist model - God becomes the underminer, the saboteur of His own statements claiming to want mankind to obey him and have his blessing.
in Christ,
Bob
They have no Biblical based answer to the fact that God holds fallen man obligatory to keep the law as God defines keeping it (James 2:10-11) under condemnation if they do not when they have no ability to do so. This proves that it is a Biblical principle that God can justly condemn men for failing to do what they are without ability to do AND the only Biblical grounds for that justification is that the entire human nature existed and consisted and acted in ONE MAN thus forfeiting the UNFALLEN SINLESS STATE and becoming totally unable to obey God's Law (Rom. 8:7).
The argument that God did everything POSSIBLE to save men is absurdly wrong and obviously wrong. That text does not mean that at all and it is obvious as Jesus clearly says:
1. If God had given as much light to Sodom and Gormorah as He did to the cities in Israel THEY WOULD HAVE REPENTED! He knew this but chose not to give them the SAME LIGHT.
2. God does not come to every man like He did Paul on the Road to Demascus and personally reveal himself.
3. God did not choose every nation and provide the same light he did for Israel.
And the list could go on and on.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Sorry, but it sounds like you are changing your former answer. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but earlier you said that would have been able to yield and seek the Holy Spirit's help, but now you seem to be suggesting that you didn't have the 'measure of grace' needed to accomplish that, otherwise you would have...
Which is it? Either you had the ability to yield but neglected to do so, OR God didn't grant you the ability by His grace to yield. Which one? And the answer really doesn't need to be longer than one sentence.
Do you believe that is true even if the grace provided isn't irresistibly applied? In other words do you believe God should get full credit for grace provided that is resisted and rejected by man? And should he get full credit for gifts even if not effectually applied? If not, why not?
But they only don't have the ability to attain it under your system, so why is that a problem for us? Again, read my sig. line. We believe men do have the ability to attain righteousness, thus we don't have a problem with the concept of being condemned for something God doesn't allow. That is unique to your system.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I agree...and I hate to say it because I know Calvinists typically don't own this about their system, but wouldn't you say that the triune God is in a much control over the acts of Christ as he is the acts of the anti-Christ under the deterministic model? They may put a few layers of second or third causes between the actions, but aren't they all ultimately originating with God?
Nothing can be done by me for the glory of God including yeilding to the Spirit apart from enabling grace. That is why Paul said, "I am what I am by the grace of God" nothing more and nothing less. I never implied that I am able to do anything that glorifies God apart from grace.
Does that mean then that if God does not provide me enabling grace I will not be able to glorify him? Exactly! Is God then responsible for my sin? No, because my inability is not God's fault but mine and here is where my Biblical analogy that God justly condemns disobedience to the law by fallen man even though He fully knows they are without ability to meet that obligation BECAUSE they willfully forfeited a SINLESS STATE OF OBEDEINCE TO GOD'S LAW in the garden of Eden and fell into TOTAL INABILITY where they are "not subject to the Law of God and neither indeed can be"(Rom. 8:7) as they existed and consisted in ONE MAN acting in unison to bring that just condition upon themselves.
The whole "saboteur" argument is fallacious from A to Z. First, the very passage used that asks what more could God do is in view to the NATURALISTIC level as a vinedresser with a vineyard rather a Creator and supernatural work required to change the nature of the vine.
Second, God does not do all that is possible to save every man equally. He did not do for other nations what he did for Israel. He did not do what He did for Saul on the road to damascus to every man and the list can go on and on. This argument is absurd when brought over to a creative spiritual level.
Third, you are attempting to distract and detour away from the problem of just condemnation for disobedience to God's Law when Israel and all fallen men are completely without ability to meet that obligation. The only justification is found in unison of action by the entire race in ONE MAN in the garden.
Fourth, the law was never designed to justify anyone but it was designed to REVEAL the total inability of fallen men to obey the Law - thus reveal them as sinners. Thus my point is valid, that God commanded fallen men to do what he knew they could not do and justly condemned them. The only just solution to this is that all humanity existed and consisted in one human nature acting in unison in ONE MAN who freely foreited THE UNFALLEN SINLESS OBEDIENT STATE of mankind to fall into complete and total inability to be subject to the law of God (Rom. 8:7).
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
But for your system this so called 'enabling grace' is more than enabling, its irresistible...even the case of your yielding to the HS for help from temptation. Right or wrong?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
These points addressed some important matters....
Since it is God's perogative and power that determines the measure of grace given and applied then it is irristable by nature and thus "it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His own good pleasure"
I already addressed these points. Remember the "catch 22" paragraph in post #86????
The Biblicist
Yes..but he will post it over and over...like his post listing out of context passages using the word all, or world.:laugh:
First, the very passage used that asks what more could God do is in view to the NATURALISTIC level as a vinedresser with a vineyard rather a Creator and supernatural work required to change the nature of the vine.
:thumbs::thumbs:
Yes..but he will post it over and over...like his post listing out of context passages using the word all, or world.:laugh:
First, the very passage used that asks what more could God do is in view to the NATURALISTIC level as a vinedresser with a vineyard rather a Creator and supernatural work required to change the nature of the vine.
[/QUOTE]
:thumbs::thumbs:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
So, the last time you sinned willfully it was God's fault for not granting your the measure of grace you needed to yield? Doesn't that make you feel like you're off the hook, so to speak?
Yet, 1 Cor. 10 teaches that we will never be tempted beyond what we can bare. Which is it?
Your argument makes grace obligatory on God's part. Since God's grace is sufficient to save us from the gutter most to the uttermost IMMEDIATELY then your argument would demand instantaneous immediate full sanctifing Grace as that is within the scope of God's grace to provide as that would elminate all sin altogether immediately. However, that is simply not the case as you know and so God purposely allows sin in the lives of believes through the choice of progressive sanctifying grace rather than immediate sanctification. Is God to be blamed for failing to provide immediate sanctifying grace since it is in His power to do so IF he so chose? The logic behind your argument demands God is to be blamed since He could do it but does not do it. You can't immediately sanctify yourself can you?? Can God? Does He lack the power or grace to do it? Would not that eliminate any further sin in our lives altogether?
So which is it? Is God obligated to provde the grace that can eliminate sin altogether from our life or is He under no such obligation? Is he to be blamed for our sins since His grace is sufficient for immediate sanctification or is He just to limit the measure of grace and faith which allows for sin in our lives? Which is it?
If you would quote the verse completely you would see it is the "way of escape that ye may bear it." The way of escape enables one to bear it. No one forces us to sin and yeilding to the Holy Spirit is always and is the only way of escape. Only pride stands in the way of "fleeing" from sin by fleeing to or yeilding to God (1 Cor. 10:12,14). Hence, we have no excuses not to yeild, and the way of escape is available within us even though God is not obligated to enable us to yeild any more than He was obligated to reveal himself in the same way to others traveling with Saul on the Road to Demascus or that he was obligated to provide the same revelation to the Gentiles that He did to Israel.
God is able and could supply was with sufficient grace right now to be fully sanctified so as to remove the possibility of sin and some day he will. However, it is not His choice to provid enabling grace now to avoid sin. Is he to be held accountable for our sins since He could supply the sufficient grace to eliminate sin from our life but does not? Whose fault is that sin since God could provide sufficient grace but does not? Whose fault is a particular sin in our life if God chooses not to provide sufficient grace to "avoid" it? Well, which is it? According to your logic God is equally blamable for ALL OUR SINS since he could provide enabling grace to immediately glorify us but does not, as much as he would be blamable for choosing not to provide enabling grace to "avoid" one particular sin.
This goes back to total inability to be subject to his law (Rom. 8:7) and yet be justly condemned for sin because we existed in Adam wherein the whole human nature consisted and acted in UNISON to freely repudiate OUR PRE-FALLEN SINLESS STATE OF ABILITY by sinning and thus falling into a state of totally inability to be 'subject to the law of God, and neither indeed can be." Thus whether lost or saved we are still account-able for our total inability in Adam and God is not obligated to provide us grace to meet our obligations and can provide only a measure of grace and thus permit sins to occur in our life when He could instantly glorify us and eliminate all sin from our lives by His grace.
If God was obligated to provide us sufficient grace not to sin, and he could, then is God at fault for only giving us a measure that is insufficient of instant glorification that would immediately eliminate sin from our lives? He could, and some day He will but is he to be blamed for not doing it now which permits sin to exist in our life? If not, then is he obligated or to be blamed if he does not enable us to yeild in regard to any particular sin?
- Status