The Meaning of "FOREKNEW" in Romans 8:29

Status
Not open for further replies.

Colossians

Veteran
Aug 20, 2003
1,175
8
✟2,700.00
Faith
Drotar,

..I don't know how a baby that's not even born yet can COMPREHEND that Jesus was 5 feet from him.
What you are not seeing here is the difference between being born again (regenerated) and the ability to articulate what has occured.
Because the evangelical movement is so Arminian in its outlook, this may still be playing a part in your thinking.
A man is born again -of the Spirit. Now think about what it means to be born. When a baby is born, it cannot articulate what has occurred. Even if it could speak immeditely, it would not be able to tell you anything, yet it is no less a baby for its lack of descriptive power.
So is it also with being born of the Spirit. What is primary is the birth, not the articulation of the birth. Being regenerate is primarily experiential (ie it is life itself), then it moves to the articulation of that life in time.
When Adam was 'breathed into', he could not tell you immediately after about the transition from non-life to life. He could only be. Afterward, it was told him how he came to be.
At the fundamental level, being born again is no different: God implants himself in us.
But we needn't fear that JB's salvation was an exception to the 'rule' of salvation through faith: he was saved through faith every bit as much as we. This is because faith is not primarily an outard declaration, but an irresistible trusting. And it is analogously seen in a new-born baby's natural and immediate trust in its mother.

How did He know who Jesus was?
By the fact that he was already part of the Body of that Jesus. And like knows like.
It is in the Spirit that he 'knew'. Here it is advisable to think of "knowing" not so much as that which is contained in the intellect, but the metaphorical "knowing" as in "Adam knew Eve", and in Jesus' words "I never knew you". In fact this is the primary 'knowing' in scripture. We with our intellect-based theologies get it around the wrong way, and subordinate this relational knowing to a mere shadow of it: intellectual knowing. John knew Christ relationally. What would then necessarily follow in his life as he read the scripture would be an articulation of that knowing (albeit still not as enlightened as the NT church via Paul's teaching).

If seems to me that that jump couldn't have been .. voluntary.
Our salvation is not 'voluntary' either, so this is what you would expect. If salvation was voluntary, then I know which way I would have volunteered: against Christ. Praise God my voluntariness was taken away from me - that I was crucified at Golgotha with Him before I knew about it.

to say that he jumped for joy because he was regenerated implies that baby John the Baptist knew the Christ before physically possible. We're talking about MORE than regeneration here.
No, it is simply regeneration. Please refer previous post in which I pointed out the time aspects of salvation.

Now, is it perhaps that the Spirit merely moved through his body to give a sign to Mary and Elizabeth?
No. The scripture tells us that John experienced joy - that it was his own joy. This emotion was therefore inextricably tied to the full person of John in every sense.
 
Upvote 0

Colossians

Veteran
Aug 20, 2003
1,175
8
✟2,700.00
Faith
Drotar

I think most of us were Ariminian when we first became Christians. Even C H Spurgeon was. It is the natural position for it is a doctrine based upon what appeared to take place.

And in fact the gospel is actually correctly preached in an apparently 'Arminian' message.
That is, it is necessarily pitched at the pragmatic level: "whosoever will". Even as Calvinists, we cannot stand up in front of a crowd and proclaim "if you are elect, you will believe". Rather we preach Christ crucified, and "whosoever will".

Behind the scenes however we know that "whosoever will" will be those of the "as many as were ordained to eternal life".
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Behind the scenes however we know that "whosoever will" will be those of the "as many as were ordained to eternal life".

But if this 'whosoever will' does not encompass those who have the capacity to refuse salvation, how are we to explain the many calls to repentance all throughout scripture? Paul, among others, seemed to have the idea crystallized:

"But in accordance with your hardness and your unrepentant heat you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God." -- Romans 2:5

If Paul is speaking of this from a determinist stance, and therefore blaming these men for something they could not otherwise produce without God's effort -- namely, repentance --, what does this make of God, who is the very One who creates every man, only to supposedly blame him for the power of sin that is inherent to his nature by the fact of being the person he is? Would not God be therefore judging Himself?

It seems to me that Paul's blaming the Jews for unrepentance implies precisely the ability to do so, but refusal.
 
Upvote 0

Colossians

Veteran
Aug 20, 2003
1,175
8
✟2,700.00
Faith
Received,

But if this 'whosoever will' does not encompass those who have the capacity to refuse salvation,
It encompasses them by virtue of the fact that "whosoever will" has an ambivalent truth value: there are those who will, and those who won't.

how are we to explain the many calls to repentance all throughout scripture?
The call is simply the means used within predestination. And the call is itself predestined.

If Paul is speaking of this from a determinist stance, and therefore blaming these men for something they could not otherwise produce without God's effort -- namely, repentance --, what does this make of God, who is the very One who creates every man, only to supposedly blame him for the power of sin that is inherent to his nature by the fact of being the person he is?
Your question is a direct paraphrase of the question Paul poses would be asked of himself by his opponents: "Thou wilt say unto me then, why doth he yet find fault, for who hath resisted his will?" Rom 9:19

It seems to me that Paul's blaming the Jews for unrepentance implies precisely the ability to do so, but refusal.
No. It is simply Rom 9:21: God calling a vessel made for dishonour for what it is: dishonourable. (It would be good if you would look into Exodus 4, upon which some of Rom 9 is based: in particular God's hardening of Pharoah's heart, and His punishing of Pharoah for it.)

The sovereignty of God issue is extremely awesome. He is the potter, and may indeed make out of one lump vessels of "wrath" and vessels of "mercy". (Rom 9:22,23)
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I disagree on your quoting of Romans 9. The instance of particular scripture interpretation does not negate what is otherwise an instance of botched justice. Vessels made for honor and dishonor: certainly. Pharoah's heart hardened? Certainly. Perhaps Pharoahs hardening was not solely on the basis of God's will -- it had to do initially with Pharoah's refusal to repent. To harden someone's heart is very likely a cure for the incapability to carry out one's plan: cowardice. Also, a man's heart plans his way, but the Lord established his steps (Prov. 16:9). It seems much more justifiable, given this verse, to state the those set for dishonor were done so through the initial refusal to repent unto salvation.

The only other option is to claim that God blames men for not doing something they are incapable of doing without His help. And this is ludicrous.
 
Upvote 0

frumanchu

God's justice does not demand second chances
Supporter
Apr 5, 2003
6,713
469
47
Ohio
✟62,780.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Received said:
The only other option is to claim that God blames men for not doing something they are incapable of doing without His help. And this is ludicrous.

Unless this incapability is the effective result of consistent and unwavering unwillingness to do it.

What you're effectively doing is removing man's guilt even prior to any application of grace by stating that he has no choice but to be sinful.
 
Upvote 0
D

Drotar

Guest
Received, if you hold to a 'free will' in the Arminian sense, I have a question:

If the will is free, why does it at times desire to sin and at times desire to praise God? What motivates the will, causes the desires? It cannot be both inherently holy and unholy at the same time. It must be one or the other.

We say we have a sin nature. And thus, we will desire only to rebel against God and act in sinful and selfish ways UNLESS God actively bestows His common grace.

Is the will holy or unholy? And if it is free, why does it go this way or that? What causes it to desire sin or holiness at times? TTYL Jesus loves you!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Colossians

Veteran
Aug 20, 2003
1,175
8
✟2,700.00
Faith
Received,

Vessels made for honor and dishonor: certainly. Pharoah's heart hardened? Certainly. Perhaps Pharoahs hardening was not solely on the basis of God's will -- it had to do initially with Pharoah's refusal to repent.
Circular reasoning. Refusal to repent is itself hardness of heart, and was the exact manifestation of the hardening God had caused. Pharoah refused to repent at Moses' warning, which is exactly what God had told Moses would occur: "..When thou goest to return to Egypt, see that thou doest all those wonders before Pharoah, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he will not let the people go" Ex 4:21

To harden someone's heart is very likely a cure for the incapability to carry out one's plan: cowardice.
God says specifically in Romans 9 that Pharoah's heart was hardended so that God would have something even harder to deliver the Israelites from, with greater glory to God the result.

Also, a man's heart plans his way, but the Lord established his steps (Prov. 16:9).
The verse says "directeth his steps". And it proves predestination. It shows that no matter what man plans, his steps (which he also plans) will be determined for him. Therefore it reveals that the plans man makes are the plans God puts in his mind.

The only other option is to claim that God blames men for not doing something they are incapable of doing without His help. And this is ludicrous.
"Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou (RECEIVED) wilt say unto me, Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?" Rom 9:18,19

Yes, thou wilt say it, and thou hast said it twice so far.
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Unless this incapability is the effective result of consistent and unwavering unwillingness to do it.

What you're effectively doing is removing man's guilt even prior to any application of grace by stating that he has no choice but to be sinful.

But unwillingness in itself is not what brings judgment; it is unwillingness in full revelation of what you are rebelling against. A man who is ignorant of a disease that is parasitic on his body is unwilling to undergo treatment; and this unwillingness is something he cannot blame, for he is ignorant of the truth. So it goes with sinful man, whose rebellion is firstly psychological. Paul reveals rather interestingly in Romans 7 that sin is not merely committing what you know to be wrong; certainly it is this as well (James 4:17). He reveals that sin is a power; something that man is victim of. Man's accountability is perfectly relative to his knowledge of the wrong, and I would warrant his capacity and motivation to repent. This is why the law is impossible to follow perfectly; man, being imperfect and slave to sin, and therefore without the agapas that makes it possible to nullify the law and fulfill it as Jesus claims, is totally unable to fulfill it in his own power. In effect, the law becomes unredeemed man's tutor in bringing him to Christ (Galatians 3:22-25).

It is not a question about obstinate sinfulness; sin exists apart from our knowledge of it. It is a question of being accountable with what you have been revealed. Those who blaspheme the spirit of truth are the ones that are worthy of an eternal Hell (Luke 12:10). Man constrained by the power of sin is in Hell already, if you will. The rewards of actions committed here on earth, I would add, are also rewarded here on earth (Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Romans 2:6).

"Surely You set them in slippery places," states the previously frustrated Asaph, concerning the fate of the wicked. "You cast them down to destruction. Oh, how they are brought to desolation, as in a moment! They are utterly consumed with terrors." -- Psalm 73:18,19

Notice the reference to the present. I am not, therefore, attempting to remove man's guilt by admitting his psychological sinfulness; this is, as stated previously, paid for in due time -- and for those who refuse repentance, in Hell that is, as Sartre would have it, 'locked from the inside.'

The other option is to claim that God blames men for not doing something they are incapable of doing without His help. And this is ludicrous.

The only reason I stated this was because the idea of claiming that man is incapable of repenting without God's help but is therefore still responsible for such rebellion is contradictory to justice. Man must be capable of repenting and accepting through faith what he is now refusing. This is all I'm advocating. God would therefore be blaming men for something they are incapable of doing, for they are sinners by nature; and God forced them into existence.

Of course, we must also realize that there are many who are incapable of refusing their sinful state because faith may not have been preached to them. Paul reveals this in Romans 10 -- without a messenger, men are incapable of repentance, for faith cometh by hearing. If there are men with the capacity to repent, but are not on the basis of man's incapability, what must we say? That they deserve eternal torment for something they would otherwise repent of given proper information (this encompasses proper preaching!)? This would be tantamount to claiming that such men deserve eternal torment for existing, which is absurd.

Drotar said:
Received, if you hold to a 'free will' in the Arminian sense, I have a question:

If the will is free, why does it at times desire to sin and at times desire to praise God? What motivates the will, causes the desires? It cannot be both inherently holy and unholy at the same time. It must be one or the other.

We say we have a sin nature. And thus, we will desire only to rebel against God and act in sinful and selfish ways UNLESS God actively bestows His common grace.

Is the will holy or unholy? And if it is free, why does it go this way or that? What causes it to desire sin or holiness at times? TTYL Jesus loves you!

The will, in itself, is neither: it is amoral. Only when it is applied to specific situations may it be labeled either good or bad. Of course, the will is not what is the important context in scripture; faith is. Faith itself is impossible to be willed; we may will specific actions in faith already have. But faith is evidence. It is faith that the righteous walk by (Hab. 2:4). But it is also faith that man is incapable of producing without understanding, as Paul reveals in his call to missions in Romans 10. Indeed, the very opposite of sin is faith (Romans 14:23). I would therefore say, given this understanding, that the unregenerate does not have any desire to praise God, for God, accessible only through Christ, has not been preached to him. And this is not his fault, and therefore not his wilfull rebellion; unless he refuses what he knows to be true.

You say we have a sin nature and we desire everything against God unless God emits His grace upon us. This seems to me to be sufficient room to argue that sin is something that man, without the help of God, is victim to. He cannot help his state of action, for until he admits faith, he is still in sin, for faith is the opposite of sin. With this in mind, it does not make sense to me how God can force men into existence, sinful under the curse of Adam, and demand that they refuse sin and come to Him unless they are capable, in their own power, to accept Him by faith.

Colossians said:
Circular reasoning. Refusal to repent is itself hardness of heart, and was the exact manifestation of the hardening God had caused. Pharoah refused to repent at Moses' warning, which is exactly what God had told Moses would occur: "..When thou goest to return to Egypt, see that thou doest all those wonders before Pharoah, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he will not let the people go" Ex 4:21

But if refusal to repent is itself hardness of heart, what makes you believe that Pharoah's refusal to repent was not the initial force that brought about God's decree to further harden his heart? Indeed, there are relative degrees to refusing repentance. The scripture quoted does not ameliorate your cause. All it does is reveal that God will indeed harden Pharoah's heart. This speaks of nothing about who was the cause of initial rebellion. And it is precisely cowardice that I am advocating as the cause by which God further hardened Pharoah's heart. Cowardice is weakness of the heart; incapability to carry out what you otherwise would indeed do.

The verse says "directeth his steps". And it proves predestination. It shows that no matter what man plans, his steps (which he also plans) will be determined for him. Therefore it reveals that the plans man makes are the plans God puts in his mind.

Actually, directeth his steps is in itself ambiguous. The hebrew, however, gives the idea of 'establishing' one's steps. And given that the context makes reference to man's heart prior to the steps placed by God, it would seem more than sufficient to admit that this placement of steps is relative to one's spiritual (or willful) standing, which is at the basis of man and man alone, and not God's sovereignty. This does not prove unconditional predestination. It proves God's respect for man's freedom. God destines steps in accordance with man's heart. Indeed, He rewards every man according to his deeds (Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Romans 2:6).

"Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou (RECEIVED) wilt say unto me, Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?" Rom 9:18,19

Yes, thou wilt say it, and thou hast said it twice so far.

If this context of scripture were according to your hermeneutical standings, and if I were an unregenerate, through this claimed critique of God's will, I am giving Him glory, for I am the one that God is intentionally creating for destruction. Therefore, I am acting justly, for I am adhering to God's will. Why are you scolding me?

Does this reveal how absurd this form of interpretation is? God is not only forcing men to be evil contrary to their freedom, but blaming them for doing something they are incapable of carrying out; namely, repentance (Romans 2:5).

Again, given the context of Proverbs 16:9 at the very least, God's will conforms to man's will, and therefore the destruction God is wroughting is perfectly on the basis of man's will. He created man with freedom, and therefore has intrinisic respect for it. Indeed, if God is intentionally creating destructed souls, and what God does is good, what does this say of Paul who desires the salvation of his countrymen only verse prior to this theological admittance (9:3)? Does his desire to save those who are otherwise being planned to eternally die by God's hand mean that his will is contrary to God's? It seems so. Therefore, Paul's common call to repentance, fueled by the very agapas that inevitably takes place within the redeemed soul following conversion, is in absolute contradiction with God's, who intentionally forces men into existence only to force them into eternal Hell apart from their consent. And so it goes with every man who loved without condition to one's eternal salvation. Man, in effect, outmercifies God.
 
Upvote 0

frumanchu

God's justice does not demand second chances
Supporter
Apr 5, 2003
6,713
469
47
Ohio
✟62,780.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Received said:
But unwillingness in itself is not what brings judgment; it is unwillingness in full revelation of what you are rebelling against. A man who is ignorant of a disease that is parasitic on his body is unwilling to undergo treatment; and this unwillingness is something he cannot blame, for he is ignorant of the truth.

Note that whether he is 'ignorant' of the disease, or if he knows of it and simply denies himself treatment, the outcome is the same. He dies.

Unwillingness, whether in full revelation or not, is not what brings judgement. Sin brings judgement. Unregenerate man simply denies that it is what it is.

Romans 1 makes it painfully obvious that man is without excuse from day one.

So it goes with sinful man, whose rebellion is firstly psychological. Paul reveals rather interestingly in Romans 7 that sin is not merely committing what you know to be wrong; certainly it is this as well (James 4:17). He reveals that sin is a power; something that man is victim of. Man's accountability is perfectly relative to his knowledge of the wrong, and I would warrant his capacity and motivation to repent. This is why the law is impossible to follow perfectly; man, being imperfect and slave to sin, and therefore without the agapas that makes it possible to nullify the law and fulfill it as Jesus claims, is totally unable to fulfill it in his own power. In effect, the law becomes unredeemed man's tutor in bringing him to Christ (Galatians 3:22-25).

All you're doing is absolving man of responsibility for his sin by portraying him as the hapless victim of it.

It is not a question about obstinate sinfulness; sin exists apart from our knowledge of it. It is a question of being accountable with what you have been revealed. Those who blaspheme the spirit of truth are the ones that are worthy of an eternal Hell (Luke 12:10). Man constrained by the power of sin is in Hell already, if you will. The rewards of actions committed here on earth, I would add, are also rewarded here on earth (Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Romans 2:6).

All men have a basic knowledge of right and wrong, and they willfully supress that knowledge and sear their own consciences to their own sinful behavior.

The only reason I stated this was because the idea of claiming that man is incapable of repenting without God's help but is therefore still responsible for such rebellion is contradictory to justice. Man must be capable of repenting and accepting through faith what he is now refusing. This is all I'm advocating. God would therefore be blaming men for something they are incapable of doing, for they are sinners by nature; and God forced them into existence.

No, it is not contrary to justice. As I pointed out, if that incapability is a characterization of his steadfast and wilfull rejection of the truth, then it is just. The point is that the 'incapability' is a testimony to just how wilfully opposed natural man is. He is so completely dedicated to his rebellion against God that he is essentially incapable of being otherwise.

Of course, we must also realize that there are many who are incapable of refusing their sinful state because faith may not have been preached to them. Paul reveals this in Romans 10 -- without a messenger, men are incapable of repentance, for faith cometh by hearing. If there are men with the capacity to repent, but are not on the basis of man's incapability, what must we say? That they deserve eternal torment for something they would otherwise repent of given proper information (this encompasses proper preaching!)? This would be tantamount to claiming that such men deserve eternal torment for existing, which is absurd.

And the alternative is...?

You are essentially completely denying the doctrine of original sin with your position here. You are casting the burden of responsibility for man's sin on the Creator, which in turn means that He must have been obligated to send His Son to the Cross. That's not grace or mercy. That's blasphemy.

I will respond to the rest later.
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Note that whether he is 'ignorant' of the disease, or if he knows of it and simply denies himself treatment, the outcome is the same. He dies.

Unwillingness, whether in full revelation or not, is not what brings judgement. Sin brings judgement. Unregenerate man simply denies that it is what it is.

Romans 1 makes it painfully obvious that man is without excuse from day one.

But sin is not the result of every individual man's action; it is the inherent nature of every man. As John MacArthur would nicely state, men are not sinners because they sin; they sin because they are sinners. To deny this is to deny original sin, and the condemnation brought upon by the fall of Adam that encompasses it.

As for Romans 1, if the capacity to respond is totally in this revelation, why send a savior? And how do you know that those who indeed do come to salvation have not 'picked up' on a message from the cosmos or their conscience, or some other supernatural revelation eternally shown to them? The ultimate conclusion is that without understanding of Christ, there can be no faith. And if Christ is not preached, how can you blame man for not apprehending the message that would otherwise set him free?

So it goes with sinful man, whose rebellion is firstly psychological. Paul reveals rather interestingly in Romans 7 that sin is not merely committing what you know to be wrong; certainly it is this as well (James 4:17). He reveals that sin is a power; something that man is victim of. Man's accountability is perfectly relative to his knowledge of the wrong, and I would warrant his capacity and motivation to repent. This is why the law is impossible to follow perfectly; man, being imperfect and slave to sin, and therefore without the agapas that makes it possible to nullify the law and fulfill it as Jesus claims, is totally unable to fulfill it in his own power. In effect, the law becomes unredeemed man's tutor in bringing him to Christ (Galatians 3:22-25).


All you're doing is absolving man of responsibility for his sin by portraying him as the hapless victim of it.

But those who commit what they know to be wrong are precisely those who sin; James reveals this perfectly (4:17). All I am claiming is that there is that sin encompasses man two ways: his soul, which is the common condition of all men; and his heart, which comes about by him committing what he knows to be wrong; herein lies the rebel. And yet man is rewarded according to his deeds in the here and now. My only conclusion is that those who are in existence without the message are sinners by nature of their souls and therefore condemned by the very nature of being the person they are, and there are those in existence who know the message and are making an attempt to respond to it, or are refusing it blatently: blasphemy of the spirit (Luke 12:10). Those who end up in Hell, then, are simply those who will have nothing of the truth -- who love evil, as Jesus says. Such an attitude can come about regardless of the revelation of Christ.

It is not a question about obstinate sinfulness; sin exists apart from our knowledge of it. It is a question of being accountable with what you have been revealed. Those who blaspheme the spirit of truth are the ones that are worthy of an eternal Hell (Luke 12:10). Man constrained by the power of sin is in Hell already, if you will. The rewards of actions committed here on earth, I would add, are also rewarded here on earth (Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Romans 2:6).


All men have a basic knowledge of right and wrong, and they willfully supress that knowledge and sear their own consciences to their own sinful behavior.

But if a man with this knowledge hears of arrogant and over-zealous preaching, given that understanding the median by which faith comes, what must we conclude? Men naturally flocked to Jesus; He was, and is, beautiful in spirit and soul. And yet even those who did not -- who perceived Him as a criminal -- were guilty of no crime. Indeed, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23:34, NASB)

Romans 1 does not encapsulate man; it encapsulates men who 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness'. If it was a case of the former, men could not be blamed for actions they intuitively commit, for it is their very nature to do so. It would be like blaming a man for breathing.

No, it is not contrary to justice. As I pointed out, if that incapability is a characterization of his steadfast and wilfull rejection of the truth, then it is just. The point is that the 'incapability' is a testimony to just how wilfully opposed natural man is. He is so completely dedicated to his rebellion against God that he is essentially incapable of being otherwise.

Is this rebellion a part of his sinful nature, or not? If it is not a part of the sin working in him, how can he rebel against the light? He would not then be a rebel. Certainly, man can work himself up into a rebel, by committing acts of evil wilfully, in revelation of what is good and bad given the specific situations. But we are speaking of the basic nature of man -- how he is when he is conceived. If this rebellious nature is something he cannot control, how can he be blamed? If this rebellious nature is indeed something he can control, why preach the gospel? Men are saved through faith; the absence of sin without faith is impossible. It is either/or.

And the alternative is...?

Post-mortem salvation, which would encompass a God of love without compromise; or the idea that God is unjust, which is hardly something I am willing to settle with.

You are essentially completely denying the doctrine of original sin with your position here. You are casting the burden of responsibility for man's sin on the Creator, which in turn means that He must have been obligated to send His Son to the Cross. That's not grace or mercy. That's blasphemy.

God is 'obligated' to nothing; again, we are falsely juxtaposing love and desert. All I am claiming is that a God of love who forces men into existence knowing perfectly that they are unable to save themselves will without hesitation commit to the idea of any sacrifice necessary to insure the blessedness of their souls. Of course, we must look at the ultimate edification of man from a teleological standpoint. The burden lies on the creator only if the creator is apathetic towards what He brought about. This is common sense. If Joe buys a dog, he must take care of it. The point I do want to get across is that love is not deserved. I do not deserve the love of anyone, for the realm of desert does not encompass love; that is debt. Man, being a rebel by nature of sin that constrains him, does not deserve the love of God. And yet it would be contradictory for God to not give it, for love cannot help but give. The conundrum emits a paradox. The essence of existence is that God creates man with freedom, the wondrous cosmos, the natural loves, and everything intrinsically good, and gives him the opportunity to seek Him, or not. Certainly, no man seeks God in His own power (Romans 3). But God seeks man; and He rewards every man according to His deeds apart from his ignorance (Proverbs 24:12). On these potentially infinite revelations, man responds to the grace of God until he finds Him. Without this freedom, and the freely offered love of God -- rather than an obligation of debt --, worship is absolutely futile.

I would agree that I am blaspheming against a semi-benevolent god. But this is not what I hold as true. God is love. He loves men into existence. God is not reconciled to us -- nowhere in the New Testament is this idea implied. We, on the contrary, are reconciled to God. We cannot take appearance as evidence, for what appears may be a superficial covering behind what actually exists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
D

Drotar

Guest
Let me be honest. I couldn't make heads or tails of that.

You say the will is amoral. I like the way you said that. That's exactly what I mean. So yeah, my question should be answered. You went on about faith, but I'm referring to how at times the will desires good and at times sin. How is that possible if the will is amoral? Where do those desires of our will originate?

I've osted my defense of limited atonement, which stands unaddressed. Perhaps you would like me to post defenses of total depravity and unconditional election as well?
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My only point in claiming that the will was amoral is that the will in itself has no value to it. Only in relation to choice is the will given, in the context of the action, a moral value. I know wrong and right, and I choose wrong. I have willed immorally. Unredeemed man, ignorant of his sin, does not know the wrong he is in; therefore, his will is not wrong, though it is still holy, being embellished in unholy things. This is how man is created. A fish doesn't know it is wet. Similarly, a man ignorant of his sinfulness does not know the effects it brings upon his character. Only when he is presented with his incorrection, in full understanding of the depravity that it brings, and yet still refuses it can sin be imputed.

'Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also? Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, "We see." Therefore your sin remains.' -- John 9:40,41 (NKJV)


By man's very nature he is a rebel -- he is automatically in opposition to the first four commandments by virtue of the depravity that is congenital to him. Of course, given that such sin is indeed congenital, man, by being born -- a process he cannot choose -- is not to be blamed for his depravity; such would be like blaming a newborn babe for being born stricken with cancer. By revelation of the law of God he becomes accountable. This does not make the law enemy; it serves as a tutor in order to bring him to Christ (Gal. 3:22-25).

"What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;" -- Romans 7:7-9 (NASB)

Notice Paul's reference to sin acting individual to his will. Such it is with depraved man, from the day of his birth until the day of his spiritual death. Man is a victim. The wicked are those who agree with the law of sin and rebel against the law so far revealed to them. For even when there is no written law, mankind still reveals a law written in his heart:

"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." -- Romans 2:14-16 (NASB).

"Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!" -- Romans 7:13-25

As interesting as it is, this passage does not refer to a post-enlightenment view of Paul's spiritual life. It is the life of the man constained by sin prior to his conversion. Paul states in v. 14 that he is sold under sin; how can this be the case with one who is a slave to righteousness? Repentance, then, refers to the external application of what the inward man -- spirit -- desires, regardless of what the outward man -- flesh -- produces. This is why you have adulterers and taxcollectors coming to repentance. They hate their sin and the death it causes, though they find themselves tangled in such a life. Sin is a force. Man is a victim. To ultimately answer your question, then, we must realize that what puzzles the will is not of the working of man; such is sin, and such sin is congenital, not of man's own working. The desires that tempt the will to imperfection are not of man himself, but the sin in his member, such being not of his own working. Is it at least theoretically possible for fallen man never to sin? Certainly. But theory and actuality are two different things. I must agree with the words of George MacDonald:

"...the notion that a creature born imperfect, nay, born with impulses to evil not of his own generating, and which he could not help having, a creature to whom the true fact of God was never presented, and by whom it never could have been seen, should thus be condmned [to everlasting torment] is as loathsome a lie against God as could find place in a heart too undeveloped to understand what justice is, and too low to look up into the face of Jesus. It never in truth found place in any heart, though in many a pettifogging brain."

Indeed, man, ignorant of the evil he submits to from the curse of sin, in constant revelation of his imperfection of the law of God, is impossible to hold perfection under the curse of that which holds his soul from accomplishing that which Christ came to cure: namely, lack of the love of God through faith. This is why Paul praises the law: it serves to bring us to Christ. What about those, then, who have never heard of Christ, or those who have heard his name but not his character (as is common in this repugnant state of preaching through fear we witness every day)? Those are innocent of blasphemy against the spirit; and are therefore impossible to be turned away by a God of love. For if God desires all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4) and has no pleasure in the perishing of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11), it is contradictory to the claim of a God sufficient in Himself to hold with assiduous zeal that He will not save them. For He was the one who brought them into existence -- in love. "We are His offspring," Paul preached to the unregenerate heathen on Mars hill.

It seems more than adaquete to claim that man, through the revelation of law, is capable of keeping his innocence intact. The situation of mankind is indeed in a state of perpetual sinfulness, as frumanchu claimed; but the question over whether they are guilty should be a matter of their awareness. Those who perpetually sin in knowledge of their sin are the unredeemable. This was the sin of the Pharisees (Luke 12:10). What man is unknowing of he will not be judged according to, as Proverbs 24:12 explicitly states. And, to tell the truth that the church needs to hear, the full revelation of God through Jesus Christ is one of these things. Paul reveals in Romans 10 the absolute necessity of preaching to the lost in order for their salvation; such cannot be established by their wills alone. Without understanding there can be no repentance to faith, for faith comes by hearing (Romans 10:17); and a soul that is not in faith is a soul in sin, for sin is the opposite of faith (Romans 14:23). In effect, it can easily be fancied that there are a great many men who are capable of hearing the gospel and responding positively, but cannot given the limitations of missions activity. Is this a fault of God? I would say not.

Ah, and would add that limited atonement is contrary to scripture:

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." -- Romans 5:18

Of course, this justification obviously can only come about through repentance. But it still stands that all of fallen man is capable to find justification of life; without such admittance, scripture is warped.

I would hope, dear friend, that your blunt statement following your original response was not a revelation of an ostentatious self-righteous display. Do you believe that what you cannot comprehend is tantamount to that which does not exist? I am only pointing this out. I find such an attitude, if such is the one expressed, disrespectful, and therefore un-neccessary.

Blessings.
 
Upvote 0
Emotional Strawmen arguments erected just to be torn down. I've yet to see an Arminian not appeal to emotion at some point (if not all) or another in their unbridled attacks on the Biblical doctrines of God's grace. Why does anyone think we have the "right" to free will. Why does anyone assert that we carry any initiative for our salvation? Why? Pride. We wish to ascribe human attributes to the Holy God. We wish to picture God as dependent on us to save us, rather than us being dependent on Him. Forgive my rant, but it's just so extremely frustrating to hear the same arguments come back after years and years of Biblical refutation. It reminds me of Dave Hunt's theology. Rubbish. Stop trying to rob God of His rightful, righteous, sovereign Kingship. God forgive our presumptious pride.
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If this is pride, then God strike me. It is question begging to state that such a post presented is in the resemblance of pride, and not honest inquiry. Without the latter we would have no reformation.

And who the dickens can say who is arminian here? I am me. Becoming a self involves the sacrifice of the admittance to dependance upon superflous philosophies.

These are words spoken in truth, devoid of rashness. Brothers, please feel free to respond to posts doctrinally. I enjoy debating this form of theology. But posts such as these are quite simply futile. I pray that I am not being misunderstood.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Received said:
If this is pride, then God strike me.
God strike or forgive me if it was implied that I am not guilty of the same pride. I include myself. It is pride. We are naturally prideful.
Received said:
It is question begging to state that such a post presented is in the resemblance of pride, and not honest inquiry. Without the latter we would have no reformation.
Inquiries such as the preceding are not inquiries that have gone unanswered; hence, the statement "Emotional Strawmen arguments erected to be torn down."
Received said:
And who the dickens can say who is arminian here?
Well, I guess one can not claim the label, yet affirm the theology.
recieved said:
I am me. Becoming a self involves the sacrifice of the admittance to dependance upon superflous philosophies.
You lost me. Forgive my incomprehension.
received said:
These are words spoken in truth, devoid of rashness. Brothers, please feel free to respond to posts doctrinally. I enjoy debating this form of theology. But posts such as these are quite simply futile. I pray that I am not being misunderstood.
Are such posts futile or can they generate a response that is more than emotional appeal? Forgive me if I've been a rock of offense. Such is not my intention.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.