Why believers cannot resist sinful temptations? (continue conversation)

[Jordan Kurecki]

I was in a conversation with Biblicist when the thread closed (why that is necessary, I'm still not sure), but I ended with these conclusions about the Calvinistic system.

When a believer sins he does so because God, for His own secret purposes, has not granted him the ability to yield or resist that given sinful act in that given circumstance. Thus, the believer, without the needed amount of grace, is certain to fall back into his flesh and sin. On the other hand, if the believer does yield and resist the temptations, that is solely due to God's choice to grant him the necessary grace to do so.

Thus, in the Calvinistic system, God is not only effectually causing the choices of the lost to be saved through regeneration, but he is causing each individual choice of every believer as to whether they resist sin or not throughout their entire lives.

So, if I, as a believer, lie to everyone, it is ultimately due to my fleshly nature and God's unwillingness to grant me the grace by which I could resist telling such a fib?

Is this a correct assessment?

They will never admit this is what they believe.. but it really is.

God holds people accountable for things they can't do, and for things they can't resist doing.

But somehow man is still accountable for it..

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok, then change the question to "What purpose did God obligate them to keep the law?".

The hardest thing is trying to defend the obvious when it is being denied. That is where I am with you. You are trying to avoid the issue by redirecting the conversation to the EXTENDED purpose rather than the IMMEDIATE purpose when the validiy of the extended purpose is completely dependent upon the immediate design of the Law.

The immediate purpose of the law is to reveal sin, sinfulness and the complete inability of fallen man to obey the law as demanded and yet justly condemned.

The extended purpose of the law depends wholly upon the immediate purpose being established FIRST as only then can the law act as a school master to lead to Christ. No Christ is necessary until the immediate purpose is left unfinished.

You want to redirect the conversation to the consequence rather than the cause. The cause for redemption rests wholly upon the immediate purpose whereas the purpose to lead to Christ come only SECONDARY although it is the ULTIMATE purpose of the law.

You are using the post-defacto purpose to explain the immediate purpose whereas it is the immediate purpose that must first be established to even give the utlimate purpose validity.

 

[Skandelon]

Walter,

Listen, bro, I understand your argument. You don't have to keep restating it. I just disagree.

You believe that God demanded perfection, which is clearly unattainable, and that somehow proves that God has and will demand that which unattainable, but the fault in that logic is that it ignores God's provision for us to attain perfection through faith. It ignores HIS PURPOSES in the process.

I know you 'LOVE' my analogies, but please indulge me for a second. Suppose you were a professor who demanded 100% to pass your very demanding course and no one, not even the smartest most diligent student could attain that grade regardless of how hard they worked.

Now, that would be tough luck for your students, but it is what it is and they are in the class and have to live by YOUR standards. Now, in this scenario it would be perfectly justified for the students to conclude something like, "This is impossible. No one can possibly pass this guys course. No one is able to do this!" ???

Sure. That would probably be a fair assessment of your course. Now, suppose that secretly your purpose in making that standard was to teach your students a lesson in grace, and in reality you would pass any and every student who humbly asked you for help REGARDLESS OF THEIR ACTUAL SCORE. Any student who just tried on their own and worked their butts off failed, but any student who humbly admitted their shortcomings and asked you for help, you decided beforehand you would pass.

Now, in this situation, would you presume that because a student was unable to pass your course through hard independent laborious effort, that he would be equally unable to seek your help?

Do you see my perspective on this? I'm not asking for agreement. I know we disagree. I'm just wanting to know that you understand it.

I posted this right after my last post and I didn't want you to miss it. I understand your view, I just disagree and hopefully this will help you see why. At this point I'm not looking for agreement, just understanding and then we can just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[The Biblicist]

Now, suppose that secretly your purpose in making that standard was to teach your students a lesson in grace

It would be impossible to accomplish that purpose without first learning the IMMEDIATE purpose which demonstrates TOTAL INABILITY.

and in reality you would pass any and every student who humbly asked you for help.

But this is not the reality. Is sinless perfection aquired by being helped or by substitutionary obedience by another who IS ABLE????? In your own person you are no more sinless after justification by faith than you were before justificaton by faith. In reality every student must deny themselves and confess they have not, are not and never will be sinless IN THIS LIFE nor will they ever be justified by their own obedience to the Law and in this analogy they will NEVER pass that test but must have the professor take it and pass it for them. So your analogy is simply worthless.

Now, in this situation, would you presume that because a student was unable to pass your course through hard independent laborious effort, that he would be equally unable to seek your help?

That is not the issue that I am defending. I am defending the issue that God did obligate and justly condemn men for what they had no ability to do as this is the underlying principle you are denying by all your arguments that the conditions of salvation must be within the purvue of man's ability or else God would not obligate them to respond that way.

 

[Skandelon]

It would be impossible to accomplish that purpose without first learning the IMMEDIATE purpose which demonstrates TOTAL INABILITY.

Right, the total inability to pass your course without help, not the totally inability to seek help.

 

[Skandelon]

But this is not the reality. Is sinless perfection aquired by being helped or by substitutionary obedience by another who IS ABLE?????

That's just in the analogy...I also affirm substitutionary atonement...which is provisional not particular in nature in our view...but that is not the point of the analogy or this portion of the discussion.

So your analogy is simply worthless.

Analogies are typically meant to illustrate one specific point, and any of them can be nitpicked to death. The point of the analogy was to simply show that the inability to pass the course through hard independent work (earning the grade), is not necessarily equal to the inability of the students to seek help.

That is not the issue that I am defending. I am defending the issue that God did obligate and justly condemn men

But it's only in your system that man is finally condemned for anything other than his own unbelief, thus there is no reason to accept the conclusions of a point which rests on God's condemnation of men for anything other than unbelief.

Go back to the analogy, though the students who failed the course might believed it was impossible to pass it, is that the reality? Did anyone really fail because their score was too low, or did they really fail because they refused to ask for help?

 

[Skandelon]

You are using the post-defacto purpose to explain the immediate purpose whereas it is the immediate purpose that must first be established to even give the utlimate purpose validity.

You say that as if grace through faith is a new purpose. You did this earlier when you talked about the 'post-defacto way of escape,' when in reality there has always been only means of escape.

 

[The Biblicist]

That's just in the analogy...I also affirm substitutionary atonement...which is provisional not particular in nature in our view...but that is not the point of the analogy or this portion of the discussion.

But your whole analogy is based upon a supposition that repudiates substitutionary atonement. You say that the professor will help all of them pass the test!!! Your analogy provides nothing applicable to prove either ability or inability to seek help. You simply make that assumption in your analogy.

The point of the analogy was to simply show that the inability to pass the course through hard independent work (earning the grade), is not necessarily equal to the inability of the students to seek help.

I never said it was. I simply was establishing the fact that God did condemn fallen men for their failture to obey what they had no ability to obey because of what is the condition of their nature. Inability is the product of enmity - they are unable because they are unwilling. That is fact! That inability is still present and existent in all men when they are confronted with the command of the gospel to repent and believe and you have no basis to assume or demand that the sinner has any more ability to obey the gospel command than the commands of the law. My position has biblical precedence and it cannot be denied that such inability is as existent when confronted with the command of the gospel to repent and believe as it was existent and present when confronted with the Law to obey. You have no biblical precedence to assume, demand or argue that such inability is not present or that God would not equally demand of them what they cannot do because they will not(state of nature), and yet that is your assumption - pure assumption - which is based presumption that God "would" not demand what they cannot do.

 

[Skandelon]

But your whole analogy is based upon a supposition that repudiates substitutionary atonement.

If I wanted to make the analogy perfectly correspond to reality I suppose I could have made you have a son in the course who earned a perfect score which you impute to those who seek your help, but that wasn't the point of the analogy...

I asked you not to nitpick the analogy, but just to simply understand my perspective and it doesn't seem you are willingly to meet me half way just to show that you understand my view.

I simply was establishing the fact that God did condemn fallen men for their failture to obey what they had no ability to obey.

No ability to obey what? The full demands of the law, or the appeal of the gospel? You seem to equate the two.

 

[The Biblicist]

If I wanted to make the analogy perfectly correspond to reality I suppose I could have made you have a son in the course who earned a perfect score which you impute to those who seek your help, but that wasn't the point of the analogy...

Your whole analogy is to prove ENABLEMENT rather than total inablity. However, the example has no Biblical correlation as you have the professor enabling them to do the very thing analogous in scripture that no man can do - pass the very test they failed. The truth is that the law does not achieve that ultimate end with all sinners. It does not lead sinners to seek Christ even though that is what they "should" do.

No ability to obey what? The full demands of the law, or the appeal of the gospel? You seem to equate the two.

You are omitting my explanation.

That inability is still present and existent in all men when they are confronted with the command of the gospel to repent and believe and you have no basis to assume or demand that the sinner has any more ability to obey the gospel command than the commands of the law. My position has biblical precedence and it cannot be denied that such inability is as existent when confronted with the command of the gospel to repent and believe as it was existent and present when confronted with the Law to obey. You have no biblical precedence to assume, demand or argue that such inability is not present or that God would not equally demand of them what they cannot do because they will not(state of nature), and yet that is your assumption - pure assumption - which is based presumption that God "would" not demand what they cannot do.

Your position is totally based upon the DENIAL that it is a Biblical principle that God DID demand what fallen man is unable to obey. Your whole argument that this cannot be true in regard to the gospel command to repent and believe is based upon pure assumption when in fact that same inability in regard to the command of the law is still present.

 

[Skandelon]

Your whole analogy is to prove ENABLEMENT rather than total inablity.

That's because its an analogy of MY perspective, not yours. Plus, the analogy does affirm total inability to attain righteousness by works (i.e. grades)....just like scriptures do.

However, the example has no Biblical correlation as you have the professor enabling them to do the very thing analogous in scripture that no man can do - pass the very test they failed.

Since when is being unable to make the grade through hard work equal to admitting you can't make the grade and asking for help from the professor? See, you are doing the same convoluting with the analogy as you do with the scripture.

The truth is that the law does not achieve that ultimate end with all sinners. It does not lead sinners to seek Christ even though that is what they "should" do.

Yes, and I imagine there are some students who will never admit they need help from their professor and thus will never pass the course.

 

[Skandelon]

That inability is still present and existent in all men when they are confronted with the command of the gospel to repent and believe and you have no basis to assume or demand that the sinner has any more ability to obey the gospel command than the commands of the law.

Question begging...I know because I could say virtually the exact same thing back to you (typically a sign of the question begging fallacy). I'd just simply say you have no basis to assume or demand that the sinner has no ability to respond to the gospel just because he is unable to fulfill the entire demands of the law.

You seemed to skip this passage (unless i just missed your response): "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."

Gentiles attain righteousness because they pursued it by faith, where as Israel did not because they pursued it by works. One is possible one is not. One is an attainable pursuit the other is not. There is MY BASIS. Where is yours?

I'd also point to Acts 28, Rom. 11, Mark 4, Matt 13 and the like which speak of man's ability who have not yet grown calloused or who are not being blinded by the use of parables, or 'cut off' from revelation for a period of time in order to accomplish a redemptive purpose. Those are more of my biblical basis...all of which I have presented numerous times while being accused of never having a Biblical basis.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

1. Who determined that sanctification would be progressive and not instanteous?

Your first error. It is both. The Old Testament speaks of people, animals, places, and even points in time being made holy or set apart. Look at, as examples, Exodus 13:2; Deuteronomy 15:19; Exodus 3:5; Genesis 2:3, which for space considerations I won't post separately here. The interesting idea about Old Testament holiness is that really it had nothing to do with the moral qualities of that which was sanctified.

For example, the burning bush in which God appeared to Moses was not some special, heavenly shrub growing in miracle dirt. What made it holy was God declaring it holy. Nevertheless, when God declared people holy, He demanded that they reflect that status by obeying the requirements of His law by cleansing, being set apart, making sacrifice and dedicating their lives to Him.

That is the case in the New Testament, too. People and places are declared to be holy or set apart.

Matthew 23, NASB
17 "You fools and blind men ! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?"

1 Corinthians 6
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.​

Even God Himself, of course, is declared holy, as in Matthew 6:9. However, holiness takes a new turn in the New Testament. It becomes grounded not just on God declaring a group of people to be His own, as with Old Testament Israel, but in God the Son's saving work. The acceptance of that work, by everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord results in those individual humans attaining the status of holy, and in doing so instantaneously. But the process of becoming complete in Christ is also ongoing.

The model of sanctification that Jesus' half-brother James articulates is very different from the instant sanctification granted us by faith. The “works” that emerge through the testing of our faith are intrinsic to the very nature of faith itself. We believe that God is good, and in the midst of life we have the opportunity to act on that belief. We believe that the crown of life awaits the faithful, and in the midst of life we must decide whether that crown is more valuable than the things of this world. Sanctification is not an extra benefit/obligation tacked onto faith. Sanctification is faith becoming itself. It is us "being conformed" to the image of Christ, not something done at salvation, but done throughout the rest of our lives.

2. Is God's grace sufficient for instant sanctification and if so, who chose to provide insufficient grace in progressive sanctification that allows sin?

I'd have to classify that as a misunderstanding of the processes I just described above, therefore the question is negated.

3. Is God responsible for the sins in progressive sanctification IF he could supply grace for instanteous sanctification?

No, no more so than He is responsible for sin being in the world in the first place. And your question against begs the view that He doesn't grant instant sanctification, which, as I've said, He most assuredly does, as well as the progressive variety that establishes our image conformed to Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Question begging...

No it is not question begging. The fact is you have no scriptural basis to claim fallen men have ability to respond to the gospel! Your response has been that God does not demand what man is not able to obey but that is the issue being debated and you can't use that as evidence for your position!

In contrast, my position has clear explicit Scripturral warrant that God can obligate fallen man to do what he is not able to do and the very same nature that is without that ability is the nature confronted with the gospel obligation.

If anyone is begging the question, avoiding the issue, creating straw men it is you. You have NOTHING to base your argument upon.

You seemed to skip this passage (unless i just missed your response): "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."

This passage says nothing about HOW faith was obtained but only that righteousness was obtained "by faith." Neither does this passage provide any explaination WHY Israel did not obtain faith but only that they did not obtain righteousness which comes by faith.

I'd also point to Acts 28, Rom. 11, Mark 4, Matt 13 and the like which speak of man's ability who have not yet grown calloused

And I have shown that hardening is a process that orignate with an antagonistic fallen nature and that the ability hardened is not spiritual but natural ability to recognize light but not respond any other way than how Christ describes in John 3:19-20. These are side issues.

 

[Skandelon]

The fact is you have no scriptural basis to claim fallen men have ability to respond to the gospel!

1. Are men held responsible for their response to the truth contained in the gospel? Yes. So, why would any rational or reasonable (objective) person presume otherwise?

2. What is the purpose of the gospel? To make an appeal for all men to be reconciled to God through faith in his Son. Compare and contrast that with the purpose of the law and you will see why I don't PRESUME that the inability to fulfill the demands of the law (which we were never intended to accomplish) equals the inability to trust in the One who fulfilled the law in our stead (something God not only wants us to do but pleads for us to do, and says he will judge us for on the final days. Men are ultimately condemned for their unbelief, remember?)

3. I've presented NUMEROUS passages which counter your view of inability and support my views...but like me your reject your opponents interpretations of those text. There is no reason to suggest they have not presented any...

 

[The Biblicist]

Your first error.

1. Do you believe you live without/above sin - 1 Jn. 1:8-10?

2. Do you believe sin is coming short of the glory of God or His sinless holiness - Rom. 3:23/James 2:10

3. Do you believe all that you think and do from any other motive than for the glory of God is sin?

4. Do you make a distinction between personal sanctification and positional sanctification?

5. Do you acknowledge that "sanctify" means to be "set apart" and is applied to inanimate things (e.g. temple, altar; moutain, etc.) which have no capability of moral responses?

 

[Iconoclast]

Skandelon

but I ended with these conclusions about the Calvinistic system.

This is where you go into error...everytime

When a believer sins he does so because God,

No Cal believes this at all,yet 75% of your posts say this based on your wrong views of the teaching Cals hold.

It turns into another...BLAME GOD for mans sin thread.

for His own secret purposes,

you know nothing of God's secret purpose.Deut 29- and yet you speculate in an evil way using the Cals as an excuse to cover your wrong ideas.

has not granted him the ability to yield or resist that given sinful act in that given circumstance.

God has freed us from sins reigning power...we have been given all things that pertain to life and godliness.

Thus, the believer, without the needed amount of grace,

again you blame God...for the believers sin-

is certain to fall back into his flesh and sin. On the other hand, if the believer does yield and resist the temptations, that is solely due to God's choice to grant him the necessary grace to do so.

God has freed us from the dominion of sin.We are still in a body of flesh that is still able to sin. That is why we are commanded to MORTIFY the deeds of the body.We are responsible to obey that command.
Failure to do so leads to Divine discipline;
4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;

13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.

14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Thus, in the Calvinistic system, God is not only effectually causing the choices of the lost to be saved through regeneration, but he is causing each individual choice of every believer as to whether they resist sin or not throughout their entire lives.

Wrong...each time you post this-

So, if I, as a believer, lie to everyone, it is ultimately due to my fleshly nature and God's unwillingness to grant me the grace by which I could resist telling such a fib?

blaming God again...see....this is what you do all the time:thumbs:

Is this a correct assessment?

Obviously not!!!:wavey::wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

This passage says nothing about HOW faith was obtained but only that righteousness was obtained "by faith."

Doesn't matter. It shows the distinction between mankind's inability to attain righteousness through the pursuit of one means while able to attain it through the pursuit of the other.

Plus, Paul tells us in the next chapter that faith comes by hearing.

Neither does this passage provide any explaination WHY Israel did not obtain faith but only that they did not obtain righteousness which comes by faith.

Sure it does. Not in this exact verse, but this section tell us. They 'stumbled over the skandalon.' They were 'sent a spirit of stupor'. They were judicially hardened by God, so as not to hear, see, understand and turn, otherwise they might have. But they did not 'stumble beyond recovery' and they still might be saved once PROVOKED to envy.

 

[The Biblicist]

1. Are men held responsible for their response to the truth contained in the gospel? Yes. So, why would any rational or reasonable (objective) person presume otherwise?

I could ask you do you believe that God held men responsible for obedience to His law??? The very same language is used to call men to obedience to His law as to His gospel - no difference. Do you?

Your very question assumes the principle that God "would" not demand what man is incapable of doing. That principle has been established so you cannot deny it nor use it to defend your position but that is precisely what you are doing. My position is based upon proven biblical principles while yours denies that principle without any basis whatsoever.

2. What is the purpose of the gospel?

2 Cor. 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

I imagine you would not like this response as it does not fit your theory. The purpose of the gospel is to condemn and to save. When Christ says, "I came not to call the righteous" that does not fit your theme here either.

The gospel is not for all. The gospel is good news only for:

1. Those who see themselves as sinners as other need no salvation

2. Those who are burdened and heavy laden with sin

3. Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness

 

[The Biblicist]

Doesn't matter. It shows the distinction between mankind's inability to attain righteousness through the pursuit of one means while able to attain it through the pursuit of the other.

No it does not! It does not say one syllable about HOW faith was obtain or WHY the Jews did not exercise faith.

[Plus, Paul tells us in the next chapter that faith comes by hearing.

The Greek term is "rhema" not "logos" and harmonizes with 2 Cor. 4:6 that the substance of faith is obtained by a creative COMMAND and the term "rhema" can refer to the "word of command."

[Sure it does. Not in this exact verse, but this section tell us. They 'stumbled over the skandalon.' They were 'sent a spirit of stupor'. They were judicially hardened by God, so as not to hear, see, understand and turn, otherwise they might have. But they did not 'stumble beyond recovery' and they still might be saved once PROVOKED to envy.

You are making assumptions contrary to the evidence. The evidence is that hardening is a process not instanteous. The evidence is that hardening originates from the fallen nature not a regenerate or "spiritual" nature. The evidence is that natural ability to RECOGNIZE light does not imply ability to RESPOND positively to the light as proven by the Law principle that God did demand what man was not able to do. The evidence is that the fallen nature always responds negatively to light (Jn. 3:19-20).