The Power of Purpose

[quantumfaith]

This post is about God's purposes in saving man. I made that clear.

But since you bring it up...God, in his grace, does share his glory with man. He is really awesome like that.


"not of yourselves" means "not of yourselves" and I don't believe those being helped by the powerful revelation of God are acting 'of themselves,' but apparently you do.

If I boast it will be that I understand and know God, that HE IS the LORD, who is KIND, JUST and RIGHTEOUS!!!

You do a much better job of ignoring his antics, than I do.

 

[quantumfaith]

You're still incorrect due to your faulty foundation. God doesn't share His glory in the way you describe, but at least you are admitting that you are in fact boasting. Isaiah 42:8.




You have no evidence to go by to prove your false indictment, but this is typical you behavior, to accuse without substance, twist what others say on your merry go round. You believe man is 'helped' by God, we believe God does it all. There we have it, God simply helps man. Unreal.



And boast you do. You don't believe in 'not of yourselves', nor do you get it as thread after thread you start prove this. It is always about giving man glory. Nor do you understand 1 Corinthians 1:29 concerning not boasting as you are giving glory to man in your arminian system, as that is what the entire system is built upon.

I will NOT ignore you. Nor your antics. You refuse to answer directly, rather you go off on your talking points, often which, have no relevance to the post you are rebutting.

 

[The Biblicist]

You're right...I overstated for a point. But can you define 'inherent' for us and explain how God doesn't have control over:

1. The 'inherent' consequences of the fall as it relates to man's natural abilities
OR
2. The "inherent" inability of His revelation for those fallen

Is that something God just didn't have control over in your perspective? Was that not His decision?

No, I did not see this post until now. Inherent in the sense that I use it means what something IS by nature or a quality or characteristics that defines what it IS by nature.

Your position must deny what the fallen nature IS according to Romans 8:7 which is Paul's explanation of all those "in the flesh" and why they "CANNOT please God." Your position directly contradicts that and says it can be enabled by God to please God but due to its nature that requires a CHANGE OF NATURE as the cheif charactreristic of the nature of Fallen man is exactly opposite to what is required to please God.


Romans 7:14-25 proves it remains unchanged by God and still is not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be and only DEATH resolves it. Hence, the need of salvation by creating a NEW MAN a NEW HEART that is distinctly different than the fallen nature.

 

[BobRyan]

The purpose of God in sending any particular light is significant.

God's purpose in sending the law:

To reveal man's inability to attain righteousness by law through works, and thus realize they need a gracious savior. In other words, the law might lead them to look for someone who says, "Come unto me all who are burdened and I will give you rest," because the law helps them to see that they can't do it alone. The burden is to great!

God's purpose in sending the gospel:

To reveal the narrow path to attain righteousness by grace through faith in Christ who fulfilled the law once and for all. The gospel is the appeal of God sent to all creation to "be reconciled to God." It's, 'whosoever believes will be saved' and it calls all who are weak, lost and in need to come and find rest and healing. The purpose is to call all men to faith and repentance so they may be saved.

Does the purpose of God matter? Does His Word return to him void or does it accomplish the purpose for which He sent it? The purpose of the gospel is to make an appeal, and to enable men to come and find rest. The purpose of the law was NEVER to do this. Does the purpose for which the law and the gospel were sent actually matter?

Conclusion: To PRESUME that because mankind is unable to fulfill the demands of the law in order to attain righteousness (which was NEVER its purpose), then man must be equally unable to respond to God's gracious and powerful gospel appeal to be reconciled (which is its purpose) is completely unfounded Biblically.

THE PURPOSE MATTERS!

Luke 7:30
30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John. 31 “To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? 32 They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’


"He came to HIS OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1

 

[Skandelon]

No, I did not see this post until now. Inherent in the sense that I use it means what something IS by nature or a quality or characteristics that defines what it IS by nature.

Your position must deny what the fallen nature IS

No, no, no...in this argument I'm not denying what you claim the fallen nature is. I'm debating against the concept that God had nothing to do with that 'inherent' design.

If indeed men are born total unable to respond to God's revelation, then how can any Calvinist deny that was by God's design? To say that it is 'natural' doesn't answer this question because who designed nature, except God?

You HAVE TO own the FACT that in your SOVEREIGN system God decided (1) the consequences of the fall AND (2) the power of His divine revelation in light of that fallen condition.

You can try to skirt your system's problems with divine culpability by calling total inability 'inherent' or 'natural' but any thinking or rational student will see through the smokescreen to the man behind the curtain pulling the levers and pushing the buttons.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, no, no...in this argument I'm not denying what you claim the fallen nature is. I'm debating against the concept that God had nothing to do with that 'inherent' design.

If indeed men are born total unable to respond to God's revelation, then how can any Calvinist deny that was by God's design?

Your argument is valid ONLY if you ignore that we also believe all humanity existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN whereby mankind freely forfeited HUMAN NATURE ABLE TO PLEASE GOD by sinning which forfeited such ability. Hence, "all men have sinned" aorist tense punctilliar completed action - Rom. 5:12 "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners."

 

[Skandelon]

Your argument is valid ONLY if you ignore that we also believe all humanity existed and consisted and acted in unison in ONE MAN whereby mankind freely forfeited HUMAN NATURE ABLE TO PLEASE GOD by sinning which forfeited such ability. Hence, "all men have sinned" aorist tense punctilliar completed action - Rom. 5:12 "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners."

I'm not arguing that point with you. I'm accepting your system for the sake of this point, okay. I'm ONLY pushing against your insistence that God didn't design total inability to be the result of the fall. To say that humanity 'forfeited such ability' presumes they have the ability to enforce or execute such a punishment upon themselves. Is that what you believe? That man somehow genetically altered their own DNA to make themselves disabled to respond to God?

HEAR ME> I am not denying federal headship. I'm NOT denying your view of total inability (at this point). I AM denying your insistence that God had nothing to do with the consequence of Total Inability, as if God was on vacation when the consequences of Adam's fall was decided.

Paul says, "GOD BOUND ALL MEN OVER TO DISOBEDIENCE"...Even non-Calvinists affirm universal fallenness due to the garden as being of God's design. Paul even says that God 'bound them over.' Why on earth can't a Calvinist, who is supposed to be highlighting God's complete control over all things, affirm His control over man's nature after the Fall?

Plus, God had to decide to send a message/revelation that was less than sufficient to enable that fallen nature to respond, right? OR was that likewise beyond the reach of God's sovereignty?

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not arguing that point with you. I'm accepting your system for the sake of this point, okay. I'm ONLY pushing against your insistence that God didn't design total inability to be the result of the fall. To say that humanity 'forfeited such ability' presumes they have the ability to enforce or execute such a punishment upon themselves. Is that what you believe? That man somehow genetically altered their own DNA to make themselves disabled to respond to God?

What I can't believe is that you even argue this way? Of course a man reaps what he sows and Genesis 2:17 forewarned exactly what SIN would forfeit -LIFE and reap death. The fallen nature operates under the "LAW OF SIN" which law spelled out in Romans 8:7 that operates in all who are "in the flesh" and that EXPLAINS why they "CANNOT" please God.

So it is not God who designed it! It is the ESSENCE of what Sin is and how sin operates. Sin SEPARATES from life found in God. Sin IS rebellion and the law of Sin IS rebellion as spelled out in Romans 8:7.

This is not difficult! You are trying to make hard what is very simple. Your attempt to blame God is irrational when the answer is starring you in the face in the very definition of what sin IS and what sin DOES by its VERY NATURE.

I have to leave now and take care of my wife. Don't know when I will be back.

 

[Skandelon]

Of course a man reaps what he sows

And who, if not God, decides the reaping of what is sown? Who decides the consequences, the punishments, if not God?

The fallen nature operates under the "LAW OF SIN" which law spelled out in Romans 8:7 that operates in all who are "in the flesh" and that EXPLAINS why they "CANNOT" please God.

That is fine. But who 'wrote' the Law of sin, if not God? Who designed it to be where man could not please God due to the fall? Mother nature? Satan? Who?

So it is not God who designed it! It is the ESSENCE of what Sin is and how sin operates.

That is the same as saying 'nature' or 'inherent,' and it doesn't help you. Define 'essence' and you'll see what I mean. You still have to have a designer of the 'essence.' Are you suggesting the essence of Sin is beyond the sovereign control of God?

Further, is the essence of revelation within God's control, because apparently He has chosen to send a revelation that isn't powerful enough for a fallen nature to respond to it. It's not much of a revelation if those its meant for can't even see it.

I have to leave now and take care of my wife. Don't know when I will be back.

Take your time bro... This discussion can always be picked up later. Priorities! Praying for her now....

 

[The Biblicist]

And who, if not God....Who designed it

Do you realize the designer of something is the author of it?? You are inferring that God is the designer of sin and thus the author of sin as the designer is the author.

Do you beleive God is the designer/author of sin?

 

[Skandelon]

Do you beleive God is the designer/author of sin?

Consequences of sin. Punishment for sin.

Try to stay on topic bro. We could discuss our views of sins origin, as I have some strong objections to the Calvinistic approach to that as well, but that isn't what we are addressing here.

 

[Skandelon]

Listen, this is real simple. Either you believe God has the ability to control the consequences of sin and the enabling power of His revelation, or you don't.

Is it your view that God could not help man's disability resulting from the fall? Or just that he chose NOT to help it?

Likewise, is it your view that God, even if He wanted to, could not make revelation powerful enough, clear enough, revealing enough for the fallen man's nature to respond?

 

[The Biblicist]

Consequences of sin. Punishment for sin.

Try to stay on topic bro. We could discuss our views of sins origin, as I have some strong objections to the Calvinistic approach to that as well, but that isn't what we are addressing here.

No, you are demanding that God is the DESIGNER OF SIN in response to my assertion that sin IS by nature what sin IS and does not call for a designer. Just as darkness IS the absence of light and does not need to be designed.

I said that sin IS rebellion as Romans 8:7 rightly defines it. I said that sin SEPARATES from God who is life and therefore by its very nature IS death. You have no response but to demand it must be designed and have a designer and you infer it has to be God.

 

[Skandelon]

No, you are demanding that God is the DESIGNER OF SIN in response to my assertion that sin IS by nature what sin IS and does not call for a designer. Just as darkness IS the absence of light and does not need to be designed.

I said that sin IS rebellion as Romans 8:7 rightly defines it. I said that sin SEPARATES from God who is life and therefore by its very nature IS death. You have no response but to demand it must be designed and have a designer and you infer it has to be God.

Ok, so do you believe sin and its consequences are beyond the reach of our sovereign God? That God could not enable men to respond with revelation even if He wanted to because sin is what it is and apparently the 'inherent essence' of sin is just too big for God to overcome, (unless he does so for the elect ones irresistibly, of course .)??? Was the punishment of the fall not under God's sovereign control? That is the one thing God just doesn't have His hand on???

Is that right?

 

[Skandelon]

Oh, and what does Paul mean by 'God bound all men over to disobedience' if not His binding men over to their fallen sinful natures?

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok, so do you believe sin and its consequences are beyond the reach of our sovereign God? That God could not enable men to respond with revelation even if He wanted to because sin is what it is and apparently the 'inherent essence' of sin is just too big for God to overcome, (unless he does so for the elect ones irresistibly, of course .)??? Was the punishment of the fall not under God's sovereign control? That is the one thing God just doesn't have His hand on???

Is that right?

What does Paul attribute attaining salvation to in Romans? "election hath obtained it" - Rom. 11:7

 

[Skandelon]

You are avoiding the question I asked you. Romans 9-11 is being discussed elsewhere.

Do you believe God has sovereign control over the consequences of sin or the enabling power of his revelation or don't you? To say that total inability is merely an inherent or natural essence of sin doesn't make this issue go away and though you may want it to go away because it undercuts your entire system, I as a "skilled debater," would be remise to allow you to walk away from it so effortlessly.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are avoiding the question I asked you. Romans 9-11 is being discussed elsewhere.

Do you believe God has sovereign control over the consequences

I was speaking about what sin IS not its many and varied consequences. By defintion it IS rebellion as described in Romans 8:7. You are attempting to change the subject to its consequences. Of course God determined it would be grounds for condemnation and eternal hell.

However, in regard to what sin IS or its inherent nature it is rebellion against God's commandments - that is what it IS and that IS the "law of sin" as expressed more fully in Romans 8:7. In regard to what sin DOES - it separates you from God because God IS holy. He is INHERENTLY Holy by nature just as fallen man is INHERENTLY SINFUL by nature.

 

[Skandelon]

I was speaking about what sin IS not its many and varied consequences. By defintion it IS rebellion as described in Romans 8:7. You are attempting to change the subject to its consequences. Of course God determined it would be grounds for condemnation and eternal hell.

However, in regard to what sin IS or its inherent nature it is rebellion against God's commandments - that is what it IS and that IS the "law of sin" as expressed more fully in Romans 8:7. In regard to what sin DOES - it separates you from God because God IS holy. He is INHERENTLY Holy by nature just as fallen man is INHERENTLY SINFUL by nature.

Do you believe God, if He so chose, could make people enabled to respond to his revelations? IF no, why not? If yes, then you cannot deny that God is the one who decided that men, as a result of the fall, would not be enabled to respond to his revelations.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you believe

My beliefs are not speculative but are necessary consequences of my understanding of scriptures. Therefore, I do not enter into philosopical speculations but stick to thus saith the Lord. I believe that your greatest difficulty is that your theology is determined by a mixture of speculative philosophy and unbiblical rationalizations and that forces you to pervert critical definitive texts that clearly contradict your whole system.