While We're on the Subject of Total Depravity...

[Received]

How can God give an impossible command? The same way your teacher in school had the right to demand answers from you which you did not have, and then penalize you for your failure to answer properly. Whether you accept it or not, God has the right to hold every man accountable for all the inability which came upon man as a consequence of Adam's transgression. Your objection to that fact is equal to a demand of God that He lower His standard of righteousness to nothing higher than the lowest common denominator. That might be considered cool by people of the world today, but it is nothing more than foolishness.

Make no mistake; I'm not claiming that God is making an impossible command. I'm claiming that because it is insinuated that God makes an impossible command, therefore God doesn't do it, for God is not in the business of nonsense or contradiction. This needs to be clear.

And again, I have no problem with the premises of Calvinism -- the sovereign right to make everyone accountable; my problem is with the conclusion that is contradictory: if man needs faith in order to come to God and God holds this faith, and command to come to faith -- to repent -- is nonsensical, because it is contradictory -- it is asking something that cannot be done. Again we go to our example between a man without legs and his master:

Man: dance!
Cripple: but I have no legs. How can I dance?
Man: you will dance, or you will be punished for your inability!

There, that's all you need; this is the summation as I see it. Pseudo-God is demanding us to do something we cannot do -- to repent when he holds the capacity for faith -- and is speaking of punishment -- which in every other sense of being used implies a capacity to do something -- as the result for not doing what cannot be done. This makes no sense. I'm not interested in the premises of Calvinism so much as the invalidity of the conclusion they lead to.

Trust me, I'm interested, not spiteful or disapproving. I'm just trying to figure out your state of seeing the world.

 

[edie19]

Wait a minute; look at that again: life isn't fair, so you don't think it's strange or unfair. That makes no sense to me.

I guess I wasn't clear - although I know what I meant (of course).

Life isn't fair or unfair for that matter - it's just life.

I don't think it's unfair that all are punished for Adam's sin. It's just life. Some things simply are (ok, really poor grammer but I think you get my point).

 

[Received]

Well, yes, life is unfair -- this is becuase it is comprised of individuals who don't care, who voluntarily emit injustice in the face of other innocent individuals. What causes me to shrink is the thought that this would still apply to God. Regardless, the fact that the world is unfair does not allow us to condone it as unfair; we cannot just say that life is unfair, and therefore we must accept it as life, suck it up, live on. Injustices remain injustices. And if it isn't injustice, why speak of it being unfair?

 

[Godzchild]

Good Day, Godzchild

Not really sure what your point is,

Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:

Eph 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

What does the text say?

Not what you think it says - that I know!

His people are Israel ok then are all the people in Israel saved?

Yes all Spiritual israel are saved.

But you said earlier one can only be adopted if one chooses to be adopted, so then God tries to adopt really hard, due to the unwillingness of man God's efforts are for not.

God calls and enables people to believe - he succeeds in that
Those who choose to believe and receive him are adopted - he succeeds in that. He doesn't fail in anything that he does.

Did God know he would fail to adopt those whom he tried to adopt before he tried?

He had not failed in anything - he put the call out there for ANYONE...and HE WILL adopt and glorify those who heed the call. He doesn't fail.

The Father predestines
The Son procures
The Spirit applies the work of the Son according to the will of the Father.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

Rember the Cavinist believes that God can really change the heart of man from a stone and write his law on that heart. You only belive that God tries really hard to do so and with out the help of man in that process God fails.

You do not know what I believe.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Make no mistake; I'm not claiming that God is making an impossible command. I'm claiming that because it is insinuated that God makes an impossible command, therefore God doesn't do it, for God is not in the business of nonsense or contradiction. This needs to be clear.

And again, I have no problem with the premises of Calvinism -- the sovereign right to make everyone accountable; my problem is with the conclusion that is contradictory: if man needs faith in order to come to God and God holds this faith, and command to come to faith -- to repent -- is nonsensical, because it is contradictory -- it is asking something that cannot be done. Again we go to our example between a man without legs and his master:

Man: dance!
Cripple: but I have no legs. How can I dance?
Man: you will dance, or you will be punished for your inability!

There, that's all you need; this is the summation as I see it. Pseudo-God is demanding us to do something we cannot do -- to repent when he holds the capacity for faith -- and is speaking of punishment -- which in every other sense of being used implies a capacity to do something -- as the result for not doing what cannot be done. This makes no sense. I'm not interested in the premises of Calvinism so much as the invalidity of the conclusion they lead to.

Trust me, I'm interested, not spiteful or disapproving. I'm just trying to figure out your state of seeing the world.

Okay, received. Insofar as God's demands--God has sent out His ambassadors to declare His word. In that word are His commands, and through that word the Holy Spirit works His will (the wind bloweth where it will). The word is vocalized to all who hear, but to those who are chosen, the word comes not merely by man's voice, but by the power of the Holy Spirit; as Paul said to the thessalonians, "Knowing your election, brethren beloved of the Lord, because our gospel came to you not in word only, but in the Holy Spirit and in power." The command comes to some without power and to others it comes with enabling, effectual power. The fact that sometimes those who standby hear the command vocally are unable to "dance", as you say, is no reason God should not have the right to declare His message abroad. The time will come when everyone will see that God's grace is the factor which determined who would respond by dancing. In a sense, the elect truly hear because of the Spirit's power, but others only hear in a superficial sense

 

[Received]

They hear in a superficial sense. That is, they do hear; they don't not hear. The command to repent is made to them, they understand it, and therefore God has administered to them a commandment that involves demanding something they cannot do; that is, God is, through a calling only superficially heard, nevertheless heard, demanding that men repent, demanding that they do something only He can do, in allowing men to have faith sufficient unto repentance.

?

 

[CSMR]

Some worthwhile questions Received. Actually you are not quite right: insofar as they hear the command to repent, they hear it through faith. As deaf, they do not hear the command to have faith.

What if we were to say that faith, given by God, is a necessity for the knowledge of God? Is there a contradiction in this statement? Because to say that faith is required or commanded by God is no more than to say this. Perhaps you are thinking of a particular ethical framework when you use the word command in which "ought implies can" holds.

 

[Received]

Firstly, I don't find any ethical constraints necessary; I am looking at the general practical understanding of the concept of "ought".

But to get to the heart of it: you are claiming that only through faith can they hear -- and yet in hearing they are not yet saved, presumably because salvation entails repentance. Well, this isn't a problem: you could easily say that all who will hear, or have heard, eventually will repent, no?

But to get back to "ought" -- it is generally held that punishment is contingent on refusal to agree to do something. You will be punished if you don't...etc. etc. In this case, it is one being punished if he does not repent -- or not? Is it one being punished for existing? "You, who exist by my hand, will be punished for existing." Ah, but perhaps I'm digressing.

The original question was: how could God demand men to do something they cannot do? That is, make the demand to repent when repentance is from God? An acceptable answer here is, as you have given, that one's ability to hear the message of repentance already entails a sense of faith, granted by God. Hence, if true hearing is needed, and faith comes only from God, where is the blame to fall? Did God not force men into existence with the stain of Adam's sin inevitably keeping them from any hope of repenting on their own accord sufficient to the negation of the distate (and punishment) of God towards their sinful life? In other words, I guess you could say, it makes no sense to me to say that God is contemptuous towards sinners for being the way they are when they could not be any other way they are except through a faith that God alone can grant as sufficient unto their repentance. It makes no sense -- unless one can say that God does not demand them to repent, that God doesn't care, and if God doesn't care, why did He force them into existence? To be a plaything for Him? Well, this may work according to any "whatever God does is just, I have interpreted God to do this, therefore God is just," conception, but getting down to childish notions of love and justice, this seems rather harsh, to say the least.

But, again, I'm probably digressing.

 

[CSMR]

Firstly, I don't find any ethical constraints necessary; I am looking at the general practical understanding of the concept of "ought".

But to get to the heart of it: you are claiming that only through faith can they hear -- and yet in hearing they are not yet saved, presumably because salvation entails repentance. Well, this isn't a problem: you could easily say that all who will hear, or have heard, eventually will repent, no?

I don't imagine a temporal gap between hearing in faith and repenting in faith; one who hears has already repented, which is not to say that there isn't a logical order - hear and then repent. True hearing and repentence occurs outside of the temporal world in God's judgement - if you like between now and eternity - which would make it impossible to say that hearing has occured now and repentence later. At any rate, let's get back on the subject.

"Give what thou commandest" (Augustine)

But to get back to "ought" -- it is generally held that punishment is contingent on refusal to agree to do something.

I take it you are referring to divine retribution. (Otherwise I could easily refute the general attitude by punishing someone for having blue eyes.)

In this case, it is one being punished if he does not repent -- or not? Is it one being punished for existing? "You, who exist by my hand, will be punished for existing." Ah, but perhaps I'm digressing.

Punishment for being carnal and not spiritual? Evidently that is not something we carnal people have choice over. Does "punishment" or shall we say judgment, depend on a pre-existential fall of each person? One should be able to say something deep here; since I cannot...

Hence, if true hearing is needed, and faith comes only from God, where is the blame to fall? Did God not force men into existence with the stain of Adam's sin inevitably keeping them from any hope of repenting on their own accord sufficient to the negation of the distate (and punishment) of God towards their sinful life? In other words, I guess you could say, it makes no sense to me to say that God is contemptuous towards sinners for being the way they are when they could not be any other way they are except through a faith that God alone can grant as sufficient unto their repentance.

Perhaps it is best if we abandon temporarily a judicial understanding of judgement (!). You seem to be have in mind that God can only judge someone for not trying his best, and if his best is precisely nothing, God cannot judge for that. Let us leave judgement for the moment. Sinners are not good - we know that. If they cannot be good, that only reinforces the fact that they are not good - there is no contradiction in saying that a person cannot be good. If by God's judgement we mean his calling something not good not good, then we have surely not said anything remarkable or anything which could have added a contradiction where there was not one already.
It may be that the idea of judgement we have now is not that to which you are used - perhaps less moralistic, more fatalistic. So be it!

It makes no sense -- unless one can say that God does not demand them to repent, that God doesn't care, and if God doesn't care, why did He force them into existence? To be a plaything for Him? Well, this may work according to any "whatever God does is just, I have interpreted God to do this, therefore God is just," conception, but getting down to childish notions of love and justice, this seems rather harsh, to say the least.

Romans 8 and 9:

"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope"

[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,​

The mystery is that without God's wrath, that is without his gospel that is not heard, his call to repentence that is not listened to, without the judgement of God in the light of which we are sinners, there is no hope, no mercy.

At present I am interested in double predestination as described by Barth, which is not the normal Calvinist position, so it may be that Calvinists have a slightly different take on some of these things.

 

[Received]

Barth, as in his Epistle to the Romans?

I can deal with Barth's Calvinism, precisely because he insinuates over being universalist, and this makes everything better, albeit screwy to me.

 

[CSMR]

Yes, I am reading that at the moment (on and off and slowly).

 

[Received]

Slowly? Is that really necessary? Can one run through concrete?

 

[justjan]

God calls and enables people to believe - he succeeds in that
Those who choose to believe and receive him are adopted - he succeeds in that. He doesn't fail in anything that he does.

He had not failed in anything - he put the call out there for ANYONE...and HE WILL adopt and glorify those who heed the call. He doesn't fail.

Here is the problem with your logic.

God calls and enables EVERY individual to believe
God adopts those who do believe.
God doesn't fail in anything He does.
Therefore all believe and are adopted as His children.

We know that every individual person DOES NOT repent and believe.

Either some individuals fail to heed God's call and God has failed to woo them to Himself OR there is some other explanation. You cannot say that God doesn't fail and assert that He calls everyone but everyone doesn't answer. It is a logical contradiction.

If you say that all humans are, to some extent able to answer God's call you contradict scripture that says we are spiritually dead. It doesn't say that we are very sick spiritually it says we are dead. We are incapable of repenting without God first working in our hearts.

The second problem is that if humans have some ability to repent and believe on Jesus for their salvation, what marks the difference between those that do make that choice and those that deny that God exists? When you say it is your choice and then choose God you assert a spiritual superiority over others who do not repent. In the end you deny that the difference between you and others is solely God's grace.

Do you believe that when Jesus commanded Lazarus to come out of the tomb that Lazarus had a choice?

How can Paul assert that he was the chief of sinners if he still had the ability to choose God? Surely he wasn't the chief if he was still good enough to choose while others denied Christ.

 

[Godzchild]

yes i can. I find it fits in logically. He hasn't failed anything. He called and enabled them to believe he never said that he was going to MAKE them believe against their will. Now, if he did actually say that he was going to do that (make them believe) then you could argue that he failed - sure. Because not everyone believes. But I don't believe he does that - he doesn't make anyone do anything - he enables them and succeeds in enabling them - he doesn't succeed in making them choose Him because he never said that he was in the business of making anybody do anything. He succeeds in everything he does.

 

[BBAS 64]

yes i can. I find it fits in logically. He hasn't failed anything. He called and enabled them to believe he never said that he was going to MAKE them believe against their will. Now, if he did actually say that he was going to do that (make them believe) then you could argue that he failed - sure. Because not everyone believes. But I don't believe he does that - he doesn't make anyone do anything - he enables them and succeeds in enabling them - he doesn't succeed in making them choose Him because he never said that he was in the business of making anybody do anything. He succeeds in everything he does.

Good Day, Godzchild

Your understanding of:

Jer 19:7 And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.

Jer 19:8 And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof.

Jer 19:9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.

Jer 19:10 Then shalt thou break the bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee,

Why did they eat flesh.. for they "shall"?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Godzchild]

What does that have to do with salvation though? Is he going to MAKE people choose Christ? Where does it says this in regards to salvation?

 

[BBAS 64]

What does that have to do with salvation though? Is he going to MAKE people choose Christ? Where does it says this in regards to salvation?

Good Day, Godzchild

You said:

"because he never said that he was in the business of making anybody do anything."


I what to deal with you "anything" first.


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Godzchild]

ok - you've done that. Now deal with the next bit

 

[justjan]

yes i can. I find it fits in logically. He hasn't failed anything. He called and enabled them to believe he never said that he was going to MAKE them believe against their will. Now, if he did actually say that he was going to do that (make them believe) then you could argue that he failed - sure. Because not everyone believes. But I don't believe he does that - he doesn't make anyone do anything - he enables them and succeeds in enabling them - he doesn't succeed in making them choose Him because he never said that he was in the business of making anybody do anything. He succeeds in everything he does.

Let me see if I understand you.

Step one: We are all TOTALLY DEPRAVED and unable to choose God
Step two: God enables everyone of us to overcome our depravity and choose Him
Step three: We make a choice to accept or reject Him.

If your objection is that God choosing us violates our free will, why doesn't step two violate the free will of those that will reject Him? Wouldn't they have been better off staying at step one where they could use their total depravity as an excuse not to choose God? Step two only brings them more responsibility for their not choosing Him. Doesn't God know that they will reject Him? A loving God surely wouldn't bring additional condemnation to one of His creatures by allowing that creature a choice and then letting him make a choice to be condemned.

 

[Godzchild]

Let me see if I understand you.

Step one: We are all TOTALLY DEPRAVED and unable to choose God

I don't believe that man is TOTALLY depraved.

If your objection is that God choosing us violates our free will, why doesn't step two violate the free will of those that will reject Him?

Because step two doesn't make the choice for them. It only enables them to see Christ.

Wouldn't they have been better off staying at step one where they could use their total depravity as an excuse not to choose God?

But if they stayed at step one then they'd die.

Step two only brings them more responsibility for their not choosing Him.

Certainly does!!!! They were given a way out and they rejected the way out - who's responsibility is it if it's not theirs?

Doesn't God know that they will reject Him?

Yeh he does. But he still gives them that chance to reject him though.

A loving God surely wouldn't bring additional condemnation to one of His creatures by allowing that creature a choice and then letting him make a choice to be condemned.

'additional' condemnation? The condemnation is that they are in sin, if they choose to remain in sin then they are still condemned for sin - there is no 'more or less'.