Received said:
Hmmmm...I suppose we could both agree that man is spiritually -- that is, psychologically -- dead to God, yet still 'alive' in a sense worthy of being capable of accountability, as scriptures are ripe with warnings and implications of what we should do, even as this applies to a non-soteriological stance.
I agree completely. I do not think man, unregenerate or regenerate, is void of a response. I just believe the Gospel is clear that man's depraved disinclination to the things of God has enslaved his mind and prevents him from ever submitting to God. It's not that the choice to submit is not there. It's just that he, being wholly adverse to the things of God, will never make that choice. It's contrary to his entire being.
For instance, Paul uses the word regarding those who are not saved as perishing, three times in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 2 Corinthians 4:3). Given this verb form, this seems to imply precisely what I was attempting to drive home with my little story. Sure, we are dead in our trespasses in sins; but we are also perishing in proportion to our unbelief. Dead cannot mean the annihilation of any spiritual activity, lest the scriptures be contradicted. It must refer to the souls relation to God, while in itself it is, without God, "perishing".[/font]
Agreed. However, you're making the presumption that because said souls are not yet perished, in the eternal sense, that there is hope for them yet. All I'm contending is that it is contradictory to the Gospel to imply that man can either of his own free, though fallen, will incline himself to the Lord, or thwart God's purpose in giving salvitic faith. The only possible response to the salvitic faith of God is to submit to the Lord of the living because we have now been made alive. It is now our nature, as a born again child of God, to love, seek, submit, and desire to do the will of our Father. If that salvitic faith is not given then man will NEVER love, seek, submit or desire to do the will of God. That desire for obedience is not part of the spiritual make up of unregenerate man. That desire is an alien desire. That is why God has told us that He gives us a heart of flesh (will inclined to Him in obedience). It's because, in our unregenerate state, we don't have a will inclined to obey Him. Once that heart is given it is who we are. It is our nature to seek and obey Him.
This seems a strawman, whether intended or not. I'm not out to take your money, Reformationist; please don't think I'm mocking you with my critique of your theology. Moreover, as this relates to the point, I find no lack of God's glory in His loving the entire creation rather than a limited number; on the contrary, the old adage of more being better seems to apply precisely here.
Reformed Christians do not limit the value of God's love nor do we limit God's ability to love all people. We just rightly recognize and agree with the Bible that God's love, shown through His providential act of regeneration is efficacious to the ultimate degree. It is wholly capable of overcoming our obstinate will and inclining our will to God.
I understand fully why man must start with the presumption that God loves everyone. We all desire to protect God from any claims of favortism or unrighteousness. The problem with this thinking is that it presupposes the need for God to be all loving and only loving. The Bible is clear that many actions of God are not predicated by a love for the recipient of His wrath. When one rationally and humbly considers himself in relation to the sovereign majesty, authority, and holiness of an only righteous God it becomes impossible for us to question the holiness of God, regardless of His actions. As to that, my only qualification is that God was not required to create us, nor was He required to have the same purpose for us all. This variance in purpose, even if one purpose is as the worthy recipient of His righteous wrath, does not cast a shadow of doubt upon the holiness of God. Rather, it forces us to submit to God's sovereign authority to bring to pass that which brings Himself the most glory. If we are able to do that thoughts like "that's not fair" would never enter our minds because we would understand that God is merciful to all in that the first sin has rightfully warrented our destruction. Actually, our inclusion in the covenant relationship of God and Adam has rightfully incurred the wrath of God against us all. "Wait," you will say. "That's not fair," you'll protest. "I shouldn't be held accountable for Adam's transgressions." Well, I can only offer you two pieces of encouragement. First, if God, the Creator of all things, including us, has deemed that He will reward us for the obedience of Adam and destroy us for the disobedience of Adam then it is His perrogative to do so. To deny this is to deny God's authority to establish His own creation as He sees fit. Additionally, we can all, if we are not delluded by our pride, acknowledge that we would have done the exact same thing as Adam. Second, if we wish for God to not hold us accountable for Adam's sins then we must, in all fairness, acknowledge that we are then responsible for atoning for our own sins. If it's unfair of God to credit us with Adam's disobedience then it's equally unfair, if not more so by virtue of the value of the sacrifice, for God to credit us with Christ's obedience.
You too,
God bless
