Behind the scenes however we know that "whosoever will" will be those of the "as many as were ordained to eternal life".
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
"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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
All you're doing is absolving man of responsibility for his sin by portraying him as the hapless victim of it.
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.
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.
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.
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:If this is pride, then God strike me.
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: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.
Well, I guess one can not claim the label, yet affirm the theology.Received said:And who the dickens can say who is arminian here?
You lost me. Forgive my incomprehension.recieved said:I am me. Becoming a self involves the sacrifice of the admittance to dependance upon superflous philosophies.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?