If I told my son to clean up his room it would strongly imply that I believed it was within his abilities to do so, especially if I punished him for failure to do so. No decent parent would tell their two day old infant to clean up a mess and then punish them for not doing so. Such an action would expose the parent as insane or completely immoral.
This is basic common sense, but is it applicable to how God deals with humanity? Is the implication in scripture of “you should” mean that “you could?” I think we can all agree that “ought” strongly implies moral ability for all practical purposes, but is that a biblical reality? Sometimes the Bible defies our practical sensibilities and turns our reality up on its ear. Is that the case here? Do God’s expressions of what we SHOULD do imply that we actually COULD do it.[1]
Could the “Rich Young Ruler” have willingly given up his wealth to follow Christ as Zacchaeus does in the very next chapter? Or was Zacchaeus granted an ability that was withheld from the Rich Young Ruler? (Note: I’m speaking of man’s moral/spiritual abilities to repent in faith, not their physical ability or mental assent, so please don’t try to rebut this article with the all too often “catch all” phrase of, “He is able but not willing.”)
Calvinists would agree with the Traditionalists that both Zacchaeus and Rich Young Ruler SHOULD have given up everything to follow Christ, but only the Traditionalist maintains that both of them COULD have willingly done so.
Why do Calvinists insist that COULD doesn’t imply SHOULD when it comes to the Biblical revelation?
Dr. Wayne Grudem, a Calvinistic scholar, explains the issue in this manner:
“Advocates of the Arminian position draw attention to the frequency of the free offer of the gospel in the New Testament. They would say that these invitations to people to repent and come to Christ for salvation, if bona fide, must imply the ability to respond to them. Thus, all people without exception have the ability to respond, not just those who have been sovereignly given that ability by God in a special way.” [2]
Grudem, like John Hendryx of mongerism.com, rebuts this perspective by making arguments such as:
“What the Scriptures say we ‘ought’ to do does not necessarily imply what we ‘can’ do. The Ten Commandments, likewise, speak of what we ought to do but they do not imply that we have the moral ability to carry them out. The law of God was given so that we would be stripped of having any hope from ourselves. Even faith itself is a divine command that we cannot fulfill without the application of God’s regenerative grace by the Holy Spirit.”[3]
Are you following the Calvinistic argument? Here it is put very simply:
- God tells man they SHOULD keep all the commandments.
- Man CANNOT keep all the commandments.
- God also tells man they SHOULD believe and repent for breaking commandments.
- Therefore man also CANNOT believe and repent for breaking commandments.[4]
If the fallacy in this argument is not obvious to you, please allow me to explain in this way:
Back when my kids were younger we did a family activity that our church had suggested. I stood at the top of the stairs with my four children at the bottom.
I said to them, “Here are the rules. You must get from the bottom of the stairs to the top of the stairs without touching any of the railing, the wall or even the stairs. Ready, go!”
My kids looked at me and then each other and then back at their mother. With bewilderment in their eyes, they immediately began to whine and complain saying, “Dad, that is impossible!”
I told them to stop whining and figure it out.
The youngest stood at the bottom and started trying to jump, slamming himself into the steps over and over. The more creative one of the bunch began looking for tools to help build some kind of contraption. Another set down on the floor while loudly declaring, “This is just stupid, no one can do that!”
Finally, in exasperation one of the kids yelled out, “Dad, why don’t you just help us?” I raised my eyebrows as if to give them a clue that they may be on the right track. The eldest caught on quickly.
“Can you help us dad?” he shouted.
I replied quietly, “No one even asked me.”
“Can you carry us up the stairs?” he asked.
“I will if you ask me,” I said.
And one by one, I carried each child to the top after they simply asked.
Then, we sat down and talked about salvation. We talked about how it is impossible for us to get to heaven by our own efforts, but if we ask Christ for help then He will carry us. It was a great visual lesson of God’s grace in contrast with man’s works.
But suppose that my children’s inability to get to the top the stairs also meant they were incapable of asking me for help. Imagine how this story would’ve played out if it was impossible for my children not only to get to the top of the stairs but equally impossible for them to recognize that inability and request help when it was offered.
This illustrates the mistake of Calvinism. Let’s go back to their fallacy above as it relates to my story:
- Dad tells his kids they SHOULD get to the top of stairs.
- Kids CANNOT complete this task as requested.
- Dad also tells the kids they SHOULD ask for help.
- Therefore the kids CANNOT ask for help.
Do you see the problem now? The whole purpose of presenting my kids with that dilemma was to help them to discover their need for help. To suggest that they cannot realize their need and ask for help on the basis that they cannot get to the top of stairs completely undermines the very purpose of the giving them that dilemma.
The purpose of the father in both instances is to get others to trust Him. The law was not sent for the purpose of getting mankind to heaven. Just as the purpose of the activity was not to get the kids to the top of the staircase. The purpose was to help them to see that they have a need and that they cannot do it on their own.
Calvinists have wrongly concluded that because mankind is unable to attain righteousness by works through the law, they must also be equally unable to attain righteousness by grace through faith. In other words, they have concluded that because mankind is incapable of “making it to the top of the stairs,” then they are equally incapable of “recognizing their inability and asking for help.” IT DOES NOT FOLLOW AND IT IS NOT BIBLICAL. Paul said;
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works (Rom. 9:30-32).
It seems Calvinists would have us believe that because pursuit by works fails in attaining righteousness that a pursuit by faith would not even be possible. This is simply never taught in scripture.
When Calvinists are pressed on the obvious implication that SHOULD implies COULD, they appeal to the demands of the law, which is like appealing to my demands for the children to get to the top of the stairs without touching anything. I didn’t make that demand with the expectation of my children actually doing it, after all it is impossible. I made the demand to help them realize they could not do it without my help.
So too, God did not send the law with the expectation that we could actually fulfill its demands. That is not the purpose of the law. According the scripture, “No one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin” (Rom. 3:20).
The law is a “tutor” who points us to our need for Christ (Gal. 3:24). The law was never sent for the purpose of being fulfilled by mankind, just as the stair-climbing activity was never intended to be completed by my kids. It was a “tutoring” lesson to teach my children that they must rely on someone else, a useless activity indeed if they are somehow incapable of coming to that realization or admitting their need for help.
If my kids are as completely incapable of understanding their need for help in getting to the top of stairs as they are in getting to top of the stairs without help, then why would I bother with the activity in the first place? Likewise, if mankind is as completely incapable of trusting in the One who fulfilled the law as they are in fulfilling the law themselves, then what is the point in sending an insufficient tutor to teach them a lesson they cannot learn?
The argument that SHOULD implies COULD remains virtually unanswered by the Calvinist who appeals to the law as their example. That is, unless they can demonstrate that it actually was God’s intention for us to fulfill the law’s demand in order to attain righteousness. After all, to conclude that man cannot fulfill the purpose of the law’s demands begs the question, because it presumes man cannot fulfill the purpose of the law by believing in the One who fulfilled it’s demands.
Basic common sense tells us that if one ought to do something, he can do it. This is especially true if one is punished for his failure to do that which is expected. In 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Paul says of the unrighteous, “They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth in order to be saved.” And in John 12:48, Jesus said, “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.”
Scripture never once says that we will perish because of Adam’s sin. But over and over again it says that we will each be held accountable for our response to the clear the revelation of God. According to Paul, all men stand “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20), yet Calvinistic doctrine gives mankind the best excuse imaginable:
Judge: “Why did you remain in unbelief?”
Reprobate: “I was born hated and rejected by my God who sealed me in unbelief from the time I was born until the time I died due to the sin of another.”
Can you think of any better excuse than that? I cannot.
[1] Norman Geisler summarizes the problem in this way: “If I’m really not the cause of my actions, why should I take responsibility for them? Why should I take either credit or blame? After all, the extreme Calvinists believes that ought does not imply can. Responsibility does not imply the ability to respond. If this is so, why should I feel responsible? Why should I care when it’s completely out of my hand one way or the other? (Chosen but Free)
[2] Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, By Wayne A. Grudem, Pg. 341
[3] John Hendryx, What Do Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism Share in Common? https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/HyperArmin.html
[4] Obligation Objection: Simply put, ought implies can and moral duties make no sense in compatibilism. 1 Cor. 10.13 can be cited as an example for libertarian freedom (God gives a way out of sin, yet we still sin). Prevenient grace seems to be a legitimate postulation, that is, the grace that precedes salvation that enables one to repent and turn from sin. Their example: P is “we ought to avoid all sin,” and Q is “we can avoid all sin” (ought implies can). However, it seems that some theologies (mainly Reformed), after the fall, P is true and Q is false (counterexample?). How about: P1, For any x, if x is a sin, then we ought to avoid doing x; Q1 For any x, if x is a sin, then we can avoid x. Here is where David Baggett and Jerry Walls (Arminians) show the Calvinist’s fallacy of equivocation. Clearly, P1 and Q2 are true but to understand where P is true and Q is false one would need to equivocate “all” for P as “for each individual sin x, taken on its own” and for Q “for the sum total of all sins added together.” An argument on equivocation seems to break at the seams. Thus, the principle of ought implies can perseveres and libertarian freedom is true. (http://sententias.org/2013/04/22/qa-19/)
This was great. Your article’s have been very helpful to me. I was really struggling with the issue of salvation, and you have been such a great help.
Excellent again Leighton! And God was more helpful with us then you were with your children. ☺ He told Israel that their founding father made it to the top of the steps by trust, before He even told them to keep the law, showing them that obedience to the law wouldn’t work.
Very good point.
Wayne Gruden wrote /The Ten Commandments, likewise, speak of what we ought to do but they do not imply that we have the moral ability to carry them out. / I would simply ask which one of those do you not have the ability to carryout? Maybe your problem is not inability but like Jesus told the Pharisees, “You are unwilling”
The loving God with all my heart part gives me trouble.
unable to love or unwilling?
It’s not until you seriously try that you see you can’t…
This is excellent.
Some comments on the Law. Paul writes: What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works (Rom. 9:30-32).
You say: God did not send the law with the expectation that we could actually fulfill its demands. That is not the purpose of the law. According the scripture, “No one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin” (Rom. 3:20). The law is a “tutor” who points us to our need for Christ (Gal. 3:24). The law was never sent for the purpose of being fulfilled by mankind,…
My thoughts: I think that Paul uses the word work to mean earn. And his point is that the Israelites tried to earn salvation by obeying the Law rather than having faith. Yet the sacrifices as part of the Law show them how this faith works.
One can consider the Law as a set of rules, and the sacrifices as the mechanism of forgiveness for breaking the rules. We have a set of rules that God knows the Israelites cannot keep (due to sin, not due to the Law) and a mechanism for which forgiveness can be obtained.
For these ancient Hebrews it was not obedience to the rules that saved them, it was faith in the sacrifice that saved them. They had to trust God that the sacrifice that he had specified would somehow remove their offence. (We understand now that the particular sacrifices in themselves did not take away their sins (Hebrews 10), rather they just were the type pointing to the true sacrifice of Christ.) Whatever clarity, or lack thereof, they had at that time concerning the animal sacrifices is less important than the faith they had in the God who had appointed the sacrifices; the God who told them that this was the path of redemption.
Acts 7:37-39 (HCSB)
37 “This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from among your brothers. 38 He is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors. He received living oracles to give to us. 39 Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him, but pushed him away, and in their hearts turned back to Egypt.
To say we are unable to obey God is an excuse for our unwillingness to obey God. We freely choose Egypt.
Good article, agree with most. I would take issues with some things. The human idea of justice and fairness is not what the Bible teaches, and that’s easily proven; this leads to some false conclusions about things, such as the thought that “I can think of no better excuse” is actually going to be a valid excuse to God. It can’t just be an excuse based on the human understanding of fairness, because this isn’t what Scripture reveals. But as long as you throw in grace with the command of God, we can both agree that implies ability.
Non-Calvinists, when disputing with Calvinists, love to focus on the Calvinist’s view of the unsaved and their inability to repent and believe because it makes Calvinists seem unreasonable; to the humanistic mind this is true. Non-Calvinists love to focus on the supposed immorality of Calvinism or the illogic of Calvinism (in their opinion) because of the dilemma of being commanded to repent and believe and being unable to repent and believe. Why do rail against Calvinism? Because their goal is to have a reasonable faith system which they think makes God much more fair and reasonable than the Calvinist doctrines. But in doing so it changes the nature of the gospel message, makes God impotent to truly save, and empowers man to be the ultimate decider in matters of salvation. Those non-Calvinists who are the most committed and convinced of their faith system must attack Calvinism because of the incompatibility of the two systems…At the end of the day, Calvinists focus on one simple truth; “If a person repents and believes, God did it.” The non-Calvinist also wants to affirm this truth; they want their cake and eat it to, so to speak. But at the end of the day, the non-Calvinist affirms one simple truth; “If a person repents and believes, the person did it.”
Agreeing with God that one needs saving is not saving ones self.
Spurgeon624:
Your post is like this Calvinistic “driveby”, just full of comments that are false and easily refuted.
“Non-Calvinists, when disputing with Calvinists, love to focus on the Calvinist’s view of the unsaved and their inability to repent and believe because it makes Calvinists seem unreasonable; to the humanistic mind this is true.”
Nice try, non-Calvinists do not reject the Calvinist’s conception of nonbelievers as zombies unable to believe unless regenerated first because we want to appeal to the “humanistic mind”. No, we reject it because it is false and does not fit reality. Nonbelievers do all sorts of good things (when the nonbeliever rescues you or family members from a raging fire, let’s see if you declare their actions to be evil). The Bible never says that the Jews could not fulfill the OT law at all, it says that they could not keep it perfectly (and God’s standard is perfection which is why James said missing one is like missing them all).
“Non-Calvinists love to focus on the supposed immorality of Calvinism or the illogic of Calvinism (in their opinion) because of the dilemma of being commanded to repent and believe and being unable to repent and believe.”
It actually is immoral to hold someone responsible for what they cannot do: and seemingly everyone **except** Calvinists understands that. We are commanded to repent and believe because the Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe. It is not that we can repent and believe on our own (we cannot, we cannot believe and repent unless the Spirit works in us). But if He does work in the sinner they are then enabled but not necessitated into believing.
“Why do rail against Calvinism? Because their goal is to have a reasonable faith system which they think makes God much more fair and reasonable than the Calvinist doctrines.”
People “rail against Calvinism” because this theology has got some major problems. You need to ponder why most Christians, who read the same Bible that you do, and believe it, at the same time reject your Calvinism?
I don’t have to reject Calvinism to maintain that God is fair. And the issue is not that non-Calvinist theology and doctrine is more reasonable than Calvinistic theology and doctrine: it is instead that Calvinism is false and non-Calvinism is true.
“But in doing so it changes the nature of the gospel message, makes God impotent to truly save, and empowers man to be the ultimate decider in matters of salvation.”
This is a very false and blatant lie: Non-Calvinists do not change the nature of the gospel message.
The gospel message is that a person can only be saved through Christ through faith. That gospel message is held by biblical people whether they be Calvinists or Non-Calvinists.
God is not “impudent to save”, he is able to save all who trust Him.
We are not the final deciders of whether or not we are saved: last time I checked the Bible talks about this thing called the final judgment, where God alone makes final determinations of people’s eternal destinies.
“Those non-Calvinists who are the most committed and convinced of their faith system must attack Calvinism because of the incompatibility of the two systems…”
Not just the incompatibility of the two views, but that one is true and one is false. And those who are teachers and leaders in the church are responsible to protect the church from false and divisive doctrine (and Calvinism fits both of these, it is both false and extremely divisive).
“At the end of the day, Calvinists focus on one simple truth; “If a person repents and believes, God did it.””
Not quite accurate, at the end of the day Calvinism comes down to the belief that God decides beforehand who will be saved and who will be lost. That in a nutshell is Calvinism. Regarding when a person repents and believes, it cannot be God doing the repenting and believing because people do that, God does not do that **for us** or **instead of us**.
If you say that when a person repents and believes that God led them to that, specifically the work of the Spirit does that (as He convicts people of sin and reveals Jesus to them, etc. etc.): then that would be accurate. But does not believe instead of us, nor does He repent in our place: we have to do that, and so we are responsible for doing that or not doing that.
“The non-Calvinist also wants to affirm this truth; they want their cake and eat it to, so to speak. But at the end of the day, the non-Calvinist affirms one simple truth; “If a person repents and believes, the person did it.””
You have simplified things so as to misrepresent the Non-Calvinist view. Yes we believe that when a person repents and believes they are the persons who do these things. The relevant issue you leave out, however, is how does someone get to this place where they are willing to repent and believe? The Bible says it is the Spirit who reveals Christ to a person (cf. 1 Cor.12:3) who convicts people of sin (Jn.16:8) who gives understanding of scripture, etc. etc. No one is in the place where they desire to repent and believe unless the Spirit has worked in them first. So Yes technically it is true that when a person repents and believes, they are the ones who do these things. But they will never desire to do these things unless the Spirit works in them first. And we are not talking about them being regenerated first, and then this causing them to believe. We are talking about the Spirit working in them first, enabling them to have faith.
Robert writes, “Nonbelievers do all sorts of good things (when the nonbeliever rescues you or family members from a raging fire, let’s see if you declare their actions to be evil).”
Robert does not understand the Biblical concept of “good.” When the rich young ruler came to Jesus, he addressed Jesus as “good” teacher, to which Jesus responded, “Why do you call be good. Only God is good.”
Robert calls the works of men (e.g., saving a person from a fire) “good.” Such is his humanistic philosophy. In the Bible, “good” is that which God does or that which man does to glorify God. People, like Robert, call their works “good” not because they mean to glorify God but because they mean to exalt themselves in the eyes of men. Such is the desire of a prideful heart. Robert calls the exaltation of the works of men, “good,” because they look good to his sinful eyes, but he does not realize that they are not “good” in God’s eyes.
Rhutchin,
Same question, you have not yet answered it:
Are you a fool by choice or by nature??
Robert writes, “Same question, you have not yet answered it:
Are you a fool by choice or by nature??”
Robert gets caught espousing his humanistic philosophy and turns on trash-talk mode. The proper response would be to defend your position or concede the point (which, by your response, you did).
Hmmm. So some of yu think you actually CAN obey the law of God. James says nay.
“For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”
The scriptures are against you on this one.
Hi Les, I think Leighton made the point that his children were unable to make it up all the steps in one leap! But they certainly made it up a few steps… which was not of any value as far as the responsibility placed upon them was concerned, but it did help bring them to the place where they could ask for mercy. All the Jews were able to understand God’s perfect requirements, to try and to fail, and were able to call out for mercy when they failed. What about Cornelius who was not saved, but was “fearing God and doing righteousness” (Acts 10:35) before God purified his heart by faith (Acts 15:8-9)?
Brian, the analogy breaks down. Trying to equate physical ability with spiritual ability is a non starter, IMHO.
Hmm accountABLE … seems James agrees man has the ability to obey God but as Jesus said, they are unwilling.
As I mentioned in the comments on your previous article, one cannot do otherwise than what God knows one shall do. This is a corollary of closed-future foreknowledge, and thus on that modal scope, it is impossible/irresistible to deviate. There’s no escaping this except to jettison logic and/or God’s closed-future foreknowledge. Period.
So, how do our “shoulds” remain meaningful? The answer is that in the modal scope of human uncertainty, all plausible prospects are considered possible, and God can and does speak to us on those terms — that is, our terms. Why? To compel us to action, and to establish appreciable and consistent consequences for when we succeed and when we fail, both in service of fixing and redeeming us.
Google “stanrock cup” and scroll down to the section “Open Language as Strategy” for examples of how a knowing person can nonetheless convey threats and hypotheticals tailored to an ignorant perspective.
Finally, as I mentioned in another comment last time, this can be very confusing because it asks we recognize that true hypothetical conditional statements can have false antecedents. This is very counterintuitive, and if it isn’t dealt with and acknowledged, all sorts of problems arise given a God with closed-future foreknowledge (the question of the nature of free will isn’t even the crux).
So, Stan, how normally read from Scripture is your “closed-future foreknowledge,” or must that be chosen as a belief based on philosophy instead of divine revelation? In other words… should philosophy interpret divine revelation for us, or should divine revelation interpret philosophy for us. Why are you seemingly afraid of the reasonableness of an open-future foreknowledge?
Brian, you said,
“Why are you seemingly afraid of the reasonableness of an open-future foreknowledge?”
Both Prof. Flowers and I believe in a God with closed-future foreknowledge. Both Prof. Flowers and I reject pyrrhic metaphysical skepticism. As such, with Prof. Flowers, I can take those things as “givens” in service of reductio ad absurdums. Those reductio ad absurdums lead to only one kind of conclusion: a compatibilistic kind.
I have great discussions with Open Theists regularly, on Reddit’s Christian community, on Facebook groups, on Twitter, on blogs, and through e-mail conversations. I’m great friends with several of them. As you know, I don’t have great discussions with you on the subject, because of your unique, needling rhetorical approach, e.g., “seemingly afraid,” irreverent to Scripture, etc. Perhaps if we met in real life things would be more productive, but the Internet isn’t working between you and me.
Satnrock, I think you are right to point out the way we converse. I’m certain I am guilty as well sometimes, though I’m working on not coming across as a smart alec, etc. Another commenter on a different post just did similarly:
““Salvation is available to each and every person even under the Calvinist system.” Rhutchin, great to hear you now believe that Christ died for the whole world.”
Now he knows it is not true that rhutchin “now believe[s] that Christ died for the whole world” in the same way that most non Calvinists believe. It’s these kinds of comments that make it difficult to have a serious discussion.
Sorry Stan that you thought it sounded like a “needling rhetorical approach”, and I do hope we can meet sometime this side of glory. But my approach, I admit, from my perspective is confrontational, though it hopefully sounds less so by being phrased with sincere questions! What you say does trouble me about what appears to be your view of God and how He uses His Word!
You said – “…examples of how a knowing person can nonetheless convey threats and hypotheticals tailored to an ignorant perspective.” You admit, even in your article that this idea does not prove determinism, but that you feel it is compatible with it. However, I think your illustrations in the article did not clearly deal with the possibility of Davi still freely responding to the threat as the threat giver had not intended. And these illustrations also still retain the problem of God’s unworthy motive of sometimes giving a threat without really wanting a good response to it from the individual threatened.
You also said – “this can be very confusing because it asks we recognize that true hypothetical conditional statements can have false antecedents.” I think you have just tried to link together two logical fallacies to help you hold onto “closed-future foreknowledge”. You seem to beg the question when you seem to infer that conditional statements in Scripture, given by God, are “hypothetical”. It was my guess that you were doing this, but my observation that if so you must assume your “closed-future foreknowledge” to do so. And then you seemed to be affirming that God will often deny the truth of an antecedent in His mind when He speaks a conditional statement (threat). God is using that logical fallacy, denying the antecedent, for good… you seem to be saying.
My questions were pointed, but honest, based on these observations! My guess that some kind of fear was keeping you from admitting the reasonableness of “open-future foreknowledge” was too blunt and does sound like “needling”. Please forgive me. But I do wonder why it seems to me that you regard the popular opinions from philosophy over the assumption of Scripture’s perspicuity. But I may be wrong, and that is why I asked.
Brian, you said,
“And these illustrations also still retain the problem of God’s unworthy motive of sometimes giving a threat without really wanting a good response to it from the individual threatened.”
That’s not what’s happening. Rather, it’s giving a threat, and wanting a good response (that is, a hypothetical good response would please him), but knowing that the good response won’t happen. You’d do this if you have greater motives than simply “to bring about that immediate and good response,” e.g., you might want to prove that your make good on your threats, and/or to show your power, and/or to express that aforementioned pleasure, for the benefit of the broader community. If the threat is given to a certain group-in-time, then the broader community entails: (1) That group, but in the future. (2) Outside of that group, at that time. (3) Outside of that group and in the future.
These are wholly good while underlying — they are the hidden threads of God’s greater purposes, the “things too wonderful to know” — his “unsearchable judgments” and “unfathomable ways” that only new revelation can extract (as in Romans 11:32-33).
You said, “You seem to beg the question when you seem to infer that conditional statements in Scripture, given by God, are ‘hypothetical.'”
This is a worrisome impasse. It should be acceptable under both an open and a closed future that future conditionals are hypothetical unless/until realized. Unless you’re asserting some sort of parallel worlds thing?
You said, “And then you seemed to be affirming that God will often deny the truth of an antecedent in His mind when He speaks a conditional statement (threat). God is using that logical fallacy, denying the antecedent, for good… you seem to be saying.”
This isn’t a logical fallacy, it’s just a counterfactual about the future. We humans use counterfactuals all the time, especially about the past. “An avalanche fell yesterday. Had it not fallen (false antecedent), we’d be up there skiing right now.” The latter is a counterfactual hypothetical conditional with a false antecedent, but the conditional itself can nonetheless be true, and I can rightly assert it without committing any sort of fallacy. If God has closed-future foreknowledge, his expressed conditionals about future things are counterfactuals every time the antecedent is false (that is, something that won’t happen), and can nonetheless be true.
Thank you for further clarification of your position. If by “hypothetical” you mean possible, then we are on the same page. But there are no possibilities in a closed-foreknowledge future, in my understanding of it, except for assumed possibilities of ability but never of availability or necessity.
And I have heard the attempt at saying counterfactuals in God’s mind about the past are the same as those in the future. But again, that is begging the question of a settled future. In even a partially open future, some things will not be known as counterfactuals until the alternative to them has happened in reality. And I believe divine conditional warnings assume an obvious good intention for those to whom its given. There are no “greater motives” in my thinking that would justify confusion of intention revealed by the conditional warning. And unconditional declarations of coming judgment are not threats in my view, though they are given to motivate repentance also. Thanks again.
Brian, you said,
“But there are no possibilities in a closed-foreknowledge future, in my understanding of it, except for assumed possibilities of ability but never of availability or necessity.”
There are no mutually exclusive possibilities in the modal scope of a foreknown-and-closed future, that is, there is only one possibility in that modal scope. Modal possibilities “live” only in absences-of-knowledge.
Let’s say there are 3 doors before me, A, B, and C. Each are unlocked and I have the strength needed to open them. In the modal scope of a human observer, “open A first,” “open B first,” and “open C first” are all possible, even though they are mutually exclusive (you cannot both “open A first” and “open B first,” for example), that is, only one is realizeable.
However, let’s say that God knows so much about me — in terms of my preferences, dispositions, brain-states, etc. — that he knows with absolute certainty that I’ll open B first. On that modal scope, only “open B first” is possible.
Let’s say God does know this for certain. Is there any meaning left in talking about possibilities before me? Yes, because I live in the modal scope of a human observer. My lack of knowledge — even lack of knowledge of my own mind — means that it is most useful to me, as a gnomic decisionmaker (this is not an idiosyncratic term, but a thing batted-around by 7th/8th C. theologians), to contemplate and evaluate floating possibilities and their implications, and most useful for God to communicate with me in terms of floating possibilities and their implications.
You said, “But again, that is begging the question of a settled future.”
I’m intending to do a neutral apologetic right now, that is, rebutting the idea that contingent expressions — and in particular conditionals with knowingly false antecedents — from a foreknowing-a-closed-future God are fallacious. I’m not intending to positively assert a closed future at this time.
This isn’t an attempt to flee the issue. It’s an important issue and the “Open vs. Closed” discussion is worthy. However, the logic employed by Prof. Flowers in this and previous posts tries to “keep cake and eat it, too.” If Prof. Flowers doesn’t like human irresistibility on God’s modal scope, then he needs to either start considering Open Theism, or abandon the use of logic in theology, one or the other.
You said, “There are no ‘greater motives’ in my thinking that would justify confusion of intention revealed by the conditional warning.”
God has made many, many statements that have catalyzed confusion, even knowingly-so (e.g., Matthew 13:11-17), with underlying payoffs as part of a many-threaded and manifold plan. A robust theodicy must bear this load.
I like the stair lesson very much as pertaining to the Law, that is impossible to reach righteousness or “heaven” on our own, and I think I get the argument of faith not being the same as not being able to keep the Law, yet I think the article leaves the impression that Jesus kept the law for us as part of our salvation rather than keeping the perfect law perfectly as proof of his qualification to die for us. I think many believe we have kept the law through him or are credited with Law keeping (part of our righteousness) through his ability to keep the Law but this is not the case, our righteousness is only credited to us by our personal faith of his work on the cross. Grace through faith.
Hi Q! I think you misspoke. Our righteousness in not credited to us… nor is Jesus’ law-keeping righteousness, as you said. But God’s righteousness, which He had before creation, is what was credited to us at salvation… the very righteous life of the Son!
Hi Brian,
Thank you for the correction, I mispoke. I was rushing to get to an appointment and did not proof read well enough.
Leighton,
You make some good points in your article here, but you are also making what appears to be an important omission. Looking at your article there is one comment that brings this out:
“So too, God did not send the law with the expectation that we could actually fulfill its demands. That is not the purpose of the law.”
Your first statement here is what you claim, **is not** a purpose of the law (“God did not send the law with the expectation that we could actually fulfill its demands”). So according to you God did not believe that the Jews could fulfill the law at all? No, you would probably back off and then claim something like: “well they could obey the law to an extent, but not PERFECTLY”. That would be more accurate, it is not that the Jews could not fulfill the law AT ALL, it is that they could not fulfill it perfectly.
Leighton you seem to be emphasizing that the sole purpose of the law was to be the tutor that shows us that we fall short (cf. the passage that Les brought up from James 2:10, that declares that if we are going to go the law route, the standard is perfection, fulfilling it all perfectly, if you do not, then you fail, in fact it is as if you failed them all, this is because if the standard is perfection which is God’s standard then it is a Pass/fail exam, either you “pass” by fulfilling it ***perfectly*** or you “fail” if you **miss it even once**).
But didn’t the law have multiple purposes (not just it function as a tutor to lead people to Christ because they realize they cannot fulfill it perfectly and so then understand they cannot be saved that way): but also to help ensure order and protection in the Jewish theocracy. In other words God did not just give the law to be a tutor to lead us to Christ (that is one purpose of it, but not the only purpose). It was also given to benefit and enhance the Jewish theocracy. If they fulfilled it even imperfectly it would help them maintain stability, order, protection, even freedom in their theocracy.
I hear some people talk about the law as if its **only** function was as the tutor. But that is not a good representation of the law as its purposes were multi-faceted. I am not Calvinist or Reformed but at least their theologians recognize that the law has multiple purposes.
The approach to the 10 commandments for example by some is dubious. They will speak about them as if they are archaic and irrelevant for us today (“Oh we are not under the law now, so who cares about them”/ so we cannot learn from them today; “those applied in the Jewish theocracy but not today”/so adultery is Ok today?).
Can we obey the 10 commandments perfectly? No, and they, like other parts of the law, function as the tutor showing us we cannot save ourselves by law keeping as we cannot obey it perfectly (that James passage speaks loudly again!). But not **obeying them perfectly** does not mean that we should not be trying to live them out to some extent.
An important distinction concerning the law comes out, earlier Christians recognized the moral law revealed in the commandments, they spoke of natural law (you can see this especially with Catholic theologians, and note the same person who spoke of the law as tutor also spoke of a moral law written on every heart, cf. Romans 2:14). True we cannot keep the Jewish law perfectly, and true we are not in a Jewish theocracy or “under the law”, but do the commands sometimes reveal or point to a moral law, a natural law that is universal? Is this the law that Paul says the Gentiles not having the Jewish law “do instinctively” (cf. Romans 2:14)? Seems to me that some Evangelicals are so into getting people saved (pointing to the laws’ purpose as tutor), that they forget that there is a moral law, natural law, and that we can learn from OT laws even if we are not under the Jewish theocracy. Leighton your article seems to imply that the law has only one function, that of being the tutor that leads people to Christ. And you are right that is one of the purposes of the law, but there are also others.
Another tremendous article that proves Calvinism is not Biblical or true. The argument made is so effective and exposes the double-speak.
Ha! I LOVE how logical you are, Leighton! God has truly blessed you!
“The whole purpose of presenting my kids with that dilemma was to help them to discover their need for help. To suggest that they cannot realize their need and ask for help on the basis that they cannot get to the top of stairs completely undermines the very purpose of the giving them that dilemma.”
“…if mankind is as completely incapable of trusting in the One who fulfilled the law as they are in fulfilling the law themselves, then what is the point in sending an insufficient tutor to teach them a lesson they cannot learn?”
“…to conclude that man cannot fulfill the purpose of the law’s demands begs the question, because it presumes man cannot fulfill the purpose of the law by believing in the One who fulfilled it’s demands.”
These are such an AWESOME points, and so easy to miss if you’re not really THINKING about it!
I am not a Calvinist, but I would like to point out that both Calvinists and Arminians have the “problem” of God holding people accountable for not doing what they could not do. We both agree that men deserve to go to hell for not keeping the law even though we can’t.
We only “can’t” if Calvinism is true. We can through Gods provision, if we are correct. The laws purpose is to point us to that provision, as the article explains.
Daniel, I am Reformed and yet you and I agree. You are correct that we cannot keep the law. ““For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”
Leighton, you ARE still around. Hoping you will come back to those questions I have asked several times at that post Calvinism undermines Apostolic Authority and Divine Inspiration.
Given that he claims to have been a Calvinist early in his life, Pastor Flowers should (and could) know better than to argue as he does above. It betrays a basic misunderstanding of Calvinism. Nonetheless, he makes an important point:
“Basic common sense tells us that if one ought to do something, he can do it.”
This is the conclusion of the Calvinists. A person, like the example of his sons, when faced with a task that he cannot do alone should naturally ask for help just as his sons did. Similarly, all who are faced with eternal death and find that they cannot save themselves should naturally appeal to God for help. All should be saved as the Universalists say. The conundrum is that the Scriptures tell us that many will not be saved. Faced with these Scriptures, the Calvinist then asked, “How is this so?” How can we understand a person doing the logically inexplicable given that one’s eternal destiny is at stake.
The answer that the Calvinists arrived at is that people reject salvation because they are depraved and that depravity neutralizes their ability to make a rational decision to ask God for help. Given that to be the case, the Calvinist then asked, “How can anyone be saved if all are depraved?” They concluded that a person who refuses to ask God for help could be saved only if God took the initiative to save them.
So, the example that Pastor Flowers begins the article should be modified. He tells his sons that they are in great harm but that great reward awaits them if they can come up the stairs without touching anything. His sons are uninterested in what he says and do what they want. It is only when Pastor Flowers walks down the stairs, picks them up, and takes them upstairs that they are rewarded.
In his book on Romans 9, Pastor Flowers offers an interesting alternative to Calvinism. He suggests that God turns some unsaved people over to Satan who then blinds them to the gospel per 2 Corinthians 4. Thus, it is not their depravity that condemns them but God’s rejection of them.
Can someone help me understand something? I tweeted Dr. Flowers, but I then saw this. I did not read the article. I admit it. I only have a question. Is it logically possible, however improbable, that someone could live and never sin? I really don’t understand that in the non-Calvinistic view. I know no one ever makes it besides Jesus. I did not want to misrepresent the non-Calvinistic view. I do not get that part of it. Thanks.
Yes its logically possible in that there is nothing illogical about someone refraining from sinning. It’s not feasible due to our sin stain and the temptations of a fallen world.
But that’s what I don’t understand. If should implies that I could, and I am responsible for my actions because I could act otherwise (for the good, not sin), and at the same time I don’t because it is not feasible because of sin stain, then what is the sin stain? Does the sin stain keep us from doing what we should but at the same time it doesn’t stain us so bad that it does not preclude could?
I don’t know if that makes sense. Let me ask this way. If should means that we could, then it is logically possible someone, someone not Jesus, could be sinless. Logically. Not very probable, but logically. In fact, we are told it has never happened, but it only hasn’t happened because people always end up sinning somewhere in their life. Everyone has sinned.
Here is where I am lost. If it is logically possible someone could never sin, the Bible is only telling me that everyone does sin. In what you said, it is true that people sin because of the stain of sin (if I understand you) and because temptations are too strong for anyone to bear it even though, logically again, not probably, could resist and indeed have the ability to resist, but sin anyway. What is that stain? How does it defeat the logical possibility that one might never sin?
Sorry. I got lost in there. I hope my question(s) make sense.
I guess I’m asking what it means for it not to be feasible to not sin but at the same time have the capacity to have been sinless (logically). If God put us in a world, and it is logically possible that we could not have or ever would sin (should implies could), but if it is never feasible, how can that imply we could logically ever have done otherwise (not sin)? How can should imply could, if it is not feasible one could? From birth to death, is it logically possible for it to be feasible for someone always be pleasible? (Yes, I made that word up…I think.)
Thanks for your time.
Dr. Flowers writes, “Yes its logically possible in that there is nothing illogical about someone refraining from sinning.”
I don’t think that is necessarily true. It comes down to Original Sin and determining the impacts of Adam’s sin on his children. There are two key impacts to be considered. Do Adam’s children inherit his corrupt nature (a sin nature) and are his children born without faith? If the children are born with a sin nature, they are inclined toward sin but without faith they have no way to counteract the sin nature and resist sin.
The unsaved do not have the Spirit of God dwelling in them so they cannot manifest the fruit of the spirit – love, joy, peace… They can only manifest a corrupted form of love (i.e., lust), a corrupted form of peace (i.e., hatred) etc.
Thus. I don’t see even the logical possibility of a person refraining from sin.
I would like to throw in the interesting idea that since all infants do not inherit Adam’s guilt, those that die before their conscience is mature enough to disobey God’s law can be said to have never sinned, as I see it. The sin nature that was lying dormant in their flesh (Rom 7:9) is removed by the benefits of Christ’s redemption and resurrection.
Tell that to Achan!
Thanks Johann for continuing the conversation with an example you think counters what I said about guilt not being inherited from Adam. Your example proves that God is just to bring physical punishment/death upon my children because of my sin. That’s a very sobering thought! But that is not making them guilty for my sin, as His judgment after their death would reveal. I hope you see the difference.
brianwagner writes, “Your example proves that God is just to bring physical punishment/death upon my children because of my sin.”
I think there could be the presumption that Achan’s sons and daughters were witnesses to his sin and choose to conceal that sin and thereby became accomplices as they also coveted the gold and silver as did Achan.
Roger, that is an unnecessary presumption, for there are too many examples of innocent children before the age of such choice (Is 7:15-16) dying physically because of the sins of others.
brianwagner writes, “…many examples of innocent children before the age of such choice (Is 7:15-16) dying physically because of the sins of others.”
Do they die “because of” the sins of others (being judged guilty of the sin of others) or as collateral damage – being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Can an infant destroyed in Noah’s flood plead innocence because he had not committed sin as those who did sin and deserved to die in the flood? Was God unfair, unjust, or unrighteous to destroy babies in the flood or in Sodom? Unlikely.
Yes… I meant collateral damage, in that the sin of others brought the physical judgment and they suffered physically for it. But physical death is never the issue, and God is never unfair if life is shortened for whatever the reason. But you admit that infants physically dying in a judgment is not because of any person sin of their own. And it does not negate that God will redeem them from their sin infected flesh that never exercised itself because their conscience was not mature enough respond to God’s law… and sin is not imputed where their is not law.
brianwagner writes, ” it does not negate that God will redeem them from their sin infected flesh that never exercised itself because their conscience was not mature enough respond to God’s law… ”
God is certainly able to do anything He wants. In Matthew 18, Jesus seems to say that God will indeed save all children – “…it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.” – depending on the meaning of little ones.
Then, “…and sin is not imputed where their is not law.”
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned– for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam,…”
Sin is not imputed where there is no law, but people stilled died – death spread to all men, because all sinned (by reason of Adam’s sin).
Rom 5:12 has produced many interpretations for that last phrase, especially the translation of the conjunction. I think “so that” is the appropriate translation… not “because”… and Paul is talking about the sin nature from Adam that leads to all sinning when theit conscienceso mature.
But physical death did reign for there was a law before Moses law (Rom 2) that was sinned against. Paul is not dealing with infants in this passage… but I borrowed the imputation maxim from it for in believe it fits with infants. See 7:9 where Paul is talking about the moment of accountability, I believe.
brianwagner writes, “I would like to throw in the interesting idea that since all infants do not inherit Adam’s guilt,…The sin nature that was lying dormant in their flesh (Rom 7:9) is removed by the benefits of Christ’s redemption and resurrection.”
So, do infants inherit a sin nature from Adam (on account of Adam’s sin which then resulted in Adam having a sin nature) after which he has children? If an infant is born with a sin nature, he is not righteous, and cannot enter heaven even if the infant never sinned – the infant is as much in need of salvation as his parents who also sinned.
God had to address two problems to save people. He had to deal with the sin they committed and then their unrighteousness (or sin nature). Thus, Romans 4, “Christ who was delivered up because of our transgressions (Christ died for our sins), and was raised because of our justification (His righteousness is imputed to those for whose sins he died).
Roger, the sin nature, I take it, is in the infant’s physical flesh and removed by the resurrection, provided for him by the resurrection of Christ.
You probably affirm that even the sinner receives a resurrected body based on Christ’s resurrection. It would be interesting to speculate if sinners keep sinning in hell? I can’t think of any verses that affirm either way.
brianwagner writes, “You probably affirm that even the sinner receives a resurrected body based on Christ’s resurrection.”
Of course, God’s elect receive new bodies. Do the reprobate receive new bodies prior to being cast into hell? Hmmmm.
Roger – John 5:28-29 “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth–those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.”
That there is a resurrection is not the issue. The form of the resurrected bodies of the reprobate is the issue. We have specific references to the bodies of the elect but I don’t think the language necessarily applies to the reprobate as well. Revelation 20 has, “the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.” So perhaps the remains of the earthly bodies or maybe just the spirits of the dead. I’m open to anything reasonable.
The idea of resurrection and human identity has always been as a body with a living soul. Jesus affirms bodies being thrown into hell.
Here is a question. If Should implies Could, then you Could be perfect. You could never sin. You should never sin, so you could never sin. Do I misunderstand?
The main problem with your argument is that it is unbiblical in it’s anthropology.
Man is not in the position, as it were, of eager children waiting at the bottom of God’s staircase, looking up, desiring to know how to get from here to there.
To make your analogy biblical, man (and the kids) spit at you, give you the finger and then run away in rebellion, refusing to head your call to ascend the staircase. And when you come down they attempt to kill you.
You miss that romans three days there is nkne righteous not even one. No one seeks God. No one understands. No one seeks God. The natural man is hostile to God, does not and cannot submit to God.
The calvinists have been answering your “should implies could” objections since spurgeon. And Christians in general have been answering that objection since Augustine.
Your mixing analogies. The child’s inability to get to the top of the staircase on their own represents mankind’s inability to attain righteousness by the law through works (the same Inability spoken of in Rom 3:9-20). The point of the analogy was to reveal that their lack of ability to get to to top of the staircase alone (attain righteousness by law) DOES NOT EQUAL a lack of ability to admit that inability and trust in someone to help (attain righteousness by grace through faith), which is EXACTLY what your rebuttal presumes (see question begging fallacy).
The Calvinist position is that people are born with a sin nature that inclines them to sin. No one is born with faith (it is transmitted to a person through the preaching of the gospel) and without the Spirit (a person is sealed by the Spirit only when they believe). Without faith and the Spirit, the sin nature dominates (producing only works of the flesh) and the person can do no good and does not seek God. Per Romans 8, the person is even unable to keep the law.
Dr. Flowers then states, “Calvinists have wrongly concluded that because mankind is unable to attain righteousness by works through the law, they must also be equally unable to attain righteousness by grace through faith.” This is wrong. Calvinists say that it is only by grace through faith that a person is able to attain righteousness. The point of the example using his children getting to the top of the stairs is that a person can only come to know his predicament through the preaching of the gospel (his telling his children what they need to do). It is the gospel that opens a person’s eyes to their need for God’s help.
The issue between Dr. Flowers and the Calvinists is the Calvinist claim that God favors His elect with faith by which they accept the gospel but does not do so for the reprobate. Dr. Flowers objects to this.
“So too, God did not send the law with the expectation that we could actually fulfill its demands. That is not the purpose of the law.”
Tell that to Moses. If the Law is a cruel joke, instead of a means for harmony with a God who ‘saves’ us from himself because he loves us, instead of because we believe the right things, as Paul preaches, then so is the Gospel. It is perfectly consistent of God to make the Gospel as much an evil as the law while still claiming that it is good.
Hello Gordon and welcome.
.
Gordon:
It is perfectly consistent of God to make the Gospel as much an evil as the law while still claiming that it is good
.
br.d
That is interesting!
You are probably the first Calvinist to come out and label the “Gospel” as “Good-Evil”.
.
We do understand that Calvinism contains a system of DUALISM where “Good” and “Evil” are co-equal, co-complimentary, and co-necessary.
.
As Jon Edwards notes – in Calvinism “Evil” is a necessary “Part” of the divine glory.
.
-quote
….the shining forth of god’s glory would be very imperfect both because the *PARTS* of divine glory would not shine forth as the *OTHERS* do…….nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. (Works of Jonathon Edwards)
.
So we understand how that a “Good-Evil” DUALISM is consistent within the Calvinist way of thinking.
That being said – most Calvinists are not as comfortable with the “Evil” part of the doctrine.
They don’t want to call it doctrines of “Good-Evil”
They want to call it doctrines of Grace.
Which – of course – is a half-truth.
.
blessings
br.d
I’m no Calvinist, but a struggling Christian who is seeing through’s The Apostle Paul’s lies, and realizing Christianity can’t give straight answers, and that A God who needs a Bible to talk to his people instead of direclt communicating with us is not a lovable god. A book of propaganda that wasn’t addressed to me is not a God worth loving.
If Paul has shown that his god doesn’t save people in response to their faithfulness in his law, but made the law to show how evil we were created from the womb, and to condemn us to hell for not being perfect,
then there’s no reason that the Gospel isn’t also a horrible sick joke with which Paul’s God will find more reasons to condemn us.
br.d
AH! I see
You are not a Calvinist
But what I noticed was a DUALISM in your conceptions – which exists within Christian doctrine – in the form of Calvinism.
.
So – I would think it safe to say – your conceptions of Christianity are heavily influenced by the Calvinist system – which as I pointed out is a system of “Good-Evil” DUALISM.
.
Did you know that Paul also wrote this:
“The gentiles – which have not the law – do by nature those things contained within the law. These, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts.”
br.d
Its late now – and I’ve had a very long day out a snow blizzard.
I need to hit the hay!
Perhaps we will chat tomorrow
.
Be well until then!
Gordon,
You had said:
“If Paul has shown that his god doesn’t save people in response to their faithfulness in his law, but made the law to show how evil we were created from the womb, and to condemn us to hell for not being perfect,
then there’s no reason that the Gospel isn’t also a horrible sick joke with which Paul’s God will find more reasons to condemn us.”
My response:
I’m no Calvinist, either. But there was a time where there was NO LAW. Moses didn’t begin with giving the law until Exodus 20. And it was only given to the Jews. Gentiles were never under it to begin with. Not even today.
Calvinism, and the like, are the ones who like to MISINTERPRET what DAVID said about being evil created from the womb.
We are NOT created evil from the womb. We are JUST LIKE ADAM AND EVE in the womb. Knowledge of good and evil is necessary before one is accountable to God. God gave everyone a conscience.
For example, everyone knows that it is wrong to lie and steal, LONG BEFORE ANYONE TOLD US. That code of morality is already in our soul.
So now, what do we do with that knowledge? If we disobey it, we FEEL GUILT.
Romans 2:14-16
14 Gentiles do not have the law. Sometimes they just naturally do what the law requires. They are a law for themselves. This is true even though they don’t have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts. The way their minds judge them proves this fact. Sometimes their thoughts find them guilty. At other times their thoughts find them not guilty. 16 This will happen on the day God appoints Jesus Christ to judge people’s secret thoughts. That’s part of my good news.
So again, the law was only given to the Jews, the children of Israel (Jacob). But why?
Romans 5:20
20 The law was given so that sin would increase. But where sin increased, God’s grace increased even more.
Abraham wasn’t given the law, either.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
But for those Jews under the law:
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
That is known as SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS. The Jews are attempting to EARN (wage) eternal life by WORKING for it, by being FAITHFUL to the law. But God gives eternal life as a gift instead. No one is made righteous in the law.
Now, are the Jews CONDEMNED to hell? They worship God. For all have sinned. To me, Romans 11:8/Deu 29:4 tells me that the Jews are blind, and therefore, NOT GUILTY…unless they can see and reject freely. Their blindness will get them MERCY in the end.
Many on this blog will disagree with me, and that’s fine. But that’s how I see the law.
We are NOT UNDER THE LAW, but under Grace. Just like Abraham.
When the story is all over and finished, there will be no evil. No temptation. No tempter. No knowledge of evil. We will be just as Adam and Eve before they got knowledge of good and evil. Ignorant, and care free.
As a Christian, we will not be judged BY THE LAW. The “BLIND” Jews, they will be judged BY the law, found guilty and given mercy. Those Jews who are NOT BLIND, but reject, they will be judged by the law, found guilty, and hell bound.
Anyone who rejects the gospel, they will be judged by the law, found guilty, and hell bound.
Those who never heard of God or Jesus…I redirect to Romans 2:14-16.
The gospel is good news, but it must be balanced with bad news.
When you get right down to it…you own mom and dad is a deptiction of God. If you disobey your parents, you get punished. In that punishment, do you consider your parents to be a sick joke because you “made a mistake”, especially if you are CONDEMNED to your room (grounded) for 30 days?
Hebrews 12:9
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?
Ed Chapman
“So now, what do we do with that knowledge? If we disobey it, we FEEL GUILT.”
Do you really believe, having thought it through, that it is entirely coincidental that no human ever has been perfect? that somehow we are born perfect but all in full knowledge with no internal or external compulsion become criminally imperfect to such an extent that God needed to kill his son just to appease himself from his demands? Do you really think that the Flesh isn’t born first, so being born again in the Spirit isn’t necessary?
No, we were born in the flesh, and the flesh is depicted as diametrically opposed to spirit. The flesh is evil; the spirit is good. The flesh is sinful; the spirit is virtuous. We are to die to fleshly bodies and be raised in spiritual bodies. It’s not a one-verse doctrine; it’s the whole theology of the epistles. The only difference between Paul and Plato is that Paul thinks that the Ideal can also be physical and tangible, as he needed to incorporate the physical resurrection into his gnostic ideology to get along with the Apostles who actually knew Jesus.
“do you consider your parents to be a sick joke because you “made a mistake”, especially if you are CONDEMNED to your room (grounded) for 30 days?” no, because my parents don’t have me executed or tortured for eternity for thought crimes and misdemeanors. Their punishments are proportional to effect and intent, not to their sovereignty or dignity or value over me.
If you love your child, you will shove them into rehab for a heroin addiction, all you can, til the day you die, not kill his brother to prevent yourself from locking him in a chamber and injecting him with capsacin until his heart stops.
My parents do not need me to sacrifice my pets to them to assuage their rage. But for God, there is no forgiveness without bloodshed.
The fact that there is need for a blood atonement, and that hell is even mentioned in the Bible means that God is not interested in correcting or healing the minds of those who disagree with the Church and the Bible’s teachings, but is more interested in crushing dissent and making up reasons to do so. God doesn’t want to give people the chance to redeem themselves, but wants to put them in an eternal debt trap.
It is so unloving, unconscionable and hypocritical that the Bible reduces itself to absurdity.
Gordon,
Your comment here reminds me of the numerous comments I read from atheists.
Why do I say that? It seems that your concentration on things is about THIS LIFE, while only focusing on THE OTHER SIDE as the BAD PLACE, just because you…how you say? Made a mistake?
My own daughter, when she was a teen, she made lots of…mistakes.
She told me that she WANTS to make mistakes… on purpose… just so that she can… learn from her mistakes.
I scolded her on that concept. As parents, first of all, children are too respect and obey their parents. But second, adults are too teach children what to do, so as to avoid making mistakes, so that they don’t have to go thru the…learning from their mistakes. That’s wisdom. Needless to say, my daughter was rebellious. She didn’t listen. Now, what did the Bible say about what to do with a rebellious child under the law of Moses? You talk about Paul, as the bad guy. But what about Moses? You haven’t even mentioned him. Paul is the nice guy. Moses was the man one. Lol.
I’m being sarcastic, but…do you want your children to obey you? Or are you one who relishes your children making mistakes so that they will learn from them?
You mention something about drug rehab. What if they don’t want to go? They want to learn from their mistakes. But it’s too late if they die of an overdose. They die due to their OWN CHOICE.
AND THAT’S MY POINT. Your own rebellion against God is what is going to get you that BAD PLACE.
People try to warn you. But you make fun of Paul.
Having said all that, Read 1 Cor 15:42-46 to see the BODY that Adam began with. Pay close attention to the word, “planted” or, “sowed”.
And remember, that body is…DIRT, aka DUST of the earth.
You will notice that the body is
1. Weak
2. Dishonorable
3. Dying
4. Natural
That should tell you that no one is…PERFECT… FOR ALL HAVE SINNED.
And since that is the fact… what must you DO to be saved?
Righteousness does not come by being perfect.
Concentrate on the word righteousness. The Jews under the law are trying to earn it, by being obedient to the law of Moses.
But Jesus shows us that righteousness is given to us just by believing in the promises of God regarding an inheritance. We call that…FAITH. Well, calvinists don’t, but everyone else does.
Your…behavior, if you will, CHANGES. You no longer want to make mistakes. The desire goes away.
Your focus changes to wanting to please God. And faith pleases God.
Please… stop making fun of Paul. He’s trying to show the DIFFERENCE between those trying to be perfect, who fail, vs. those who acknowledge not being perfect, sinners, but believe God, and the behavior changes, wanting to please your parents…I mean, God.
Good Day, Gordon!!
Gordon,
One thing you said that stands out, you said that God doesn’t give those in hell a second chance to redeem themselves.
Why would he? They rejected him here, while alive. It’s not about being perfect. It’s about not believing. That’s why I mentioned the word ATHEIST in my last comment. You don’t believe. You have no faith. You have no hope. You make fun of Paul.
You’ve read the Rich man and Lazarus, right?
Luke 16
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Everything I just said still stands because of your deliberate ignorance of the human condition that was wrought by your version of a god. People are rebellious because they were created with a rebellious nature, some more than others. But as you said, not believing your because-I-said-so claim is the thought crime your god tortures people forever for.
Whenever someone points out human imperfection, you condemn those you condemn for disbelief instead of sin.
Whenever someone points out the limitations of the Gospel and why so few have reason to believe, you condemn whom you condemn for sin instead of disbelief.
In both mutually exclusive claims, you claim that God takes a finite and ignorant effort and makes it infinite, in full knowledge, and irreversible, so as to punish it infinitely, and you can’t explain the logic behind it, or even descrive it without name-calling and trying to shout through the screen in all-caps like a child. All you can do is threaten me with texts that were actually directed to theological authorities like you.
Okay, buddy. Whatever. I didn’t ignore the human condition at all. I made that my chivalry point, but you missed it all.
1 cor 15:42-46 is specific of the human condition.
Everyone is screwed up.
So based on human condition, no one is perfect.
So now what? Make fun of both me and Paul now?
Whatever. Be an atheist if that makes you all warm and fuzzy.
Ed Chapman
I am not an atheist, and it doesn’t. The illusion that any-and-all objections to biblical foulnesses are ‘atheism’ is why there are so many ‘atheists’ today.
Gordon
Everything I just said still stands because of your deliberate ignorance of the human condition that was wrought by your version of a god. People are rebellious because they were created with a rebellious nature, some more than others.
br.d
Gordon – that is not a version of God that is entailed by anyone here at SOT101
I mentioned to you before – your conceptions of God are *CALVINIST* conceptions.
The god of John Calvin – and hence the god of Calvinism creates/designs the vast majority of humans specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure.
So once again – it is important to inform you – even though you claim to not be a Calvinist – your conceptions are in fact Calvinist.
Your error – is to automatically super-impose those conceptions onto people to whom they don’t apply.
Calvinism claims that all humans are created after Adam on a vector to eternal damnation and some will be diverted to heaven.
Non-Calvinism claims that all humans are created after Adam on a vector to hell and some will happen to make the right exit ramp that leads to heaven (all the others are detours that still lead to hell.)
Pelagianism claims that all were created on a slope, from which all will accelerate on a vector to hell because of their willful obedience to gravity, and must make the right exit ramp that leads to heaven.
All of them reach the same conclusion on different technicalities: “You’re (by nature or nurture) going to hell if you don’t (by will or by fate) convert to our model of God’s behavior and think like we do.”
Sin and judgement and the threat of damnation are universal, and the Bible makes it clear that God’s infinite strictness threatens everyone, that law and conscience serve to condemn and destroy instead of redeem and restore, which is why God needed to kill his son to do the redeeming and restoring.
What actual, effective, tangible difference in outcome do the three systems make? How is one not as good as the other when you step back and look at creation and fall instead of just at fall and redemption?
Gordon
Calvinism claims that all humans are created after Adam on a vector to eternal damnation and some will be diverted to heaven.
.
br.d
FALSE
.
In Calvinism – we have a divine potter – who at the foundation of the world – conceives of each individual person.
And that conception includes a decision about whether or that individual will be created/designed as a vessel of wrath or a vessel of mercy.
.
The “MANY” are specifically created/designed to be “NON-ELECT”.
The “NON ELECT” are created/designed specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure.
.
The “FEW” are specifically created/designed to be “ELECT”
The “ELECT” are created/designed specifically for salvation.
.
John Calvin
-quote
Some are ordained for eternal life. Others for eternal damnation. Accordingly for one end or the other we [Calvinists] say they are predestined to life or death.
.
John Calvin
-quote
By the good pleasure of god – though the reasons do not appear they are NOT FOUND but MADE worthy of destruction. (On Predestination)
.
Additionally – Calvin’s god also creates/designs the “MANY” within the Calvinsit fold – specifically as chaff – giving them a FALSE SENSE of salvation
.
John Calvin
-quote
But the Lord gives them a SENSE such as can be felt WITHOUT the spirit of adoption.
He ILLUMINES THEM ONLY FOR A TIME to partake of it – and then he…….strikes them with greater blindness.
.
So in Calvinism – every individual is either created/designed to be “ELECT” or “NON-ELECT”
.
BTW:
The fact that you assume to know what Calvinism claims – indicates you are more closely associated with Calvinism then you wanted to let on.
The “elect” are all still created sinners, though, sinners who start on a vector towards judgement, but have secretly been created to be redeemed, which is what I mean by them being diverted towards heaven. To redeem someone, you must first give them something to be redeemed from. Calvinism just says that this redemption is also also completely arbitrary to match what brought about our need for redemption.
The fact remains, and my point stands: “all have sinned” to the point of needing a murder to atone for it; it cannot be otherwise, and nothing but the Christian religion saves you from Paul’s problem. Just because we’re not fated to fail doesn’t mean we’re not set up to fail.
The universality of sin that leads to needing Jesus, that universality cannot be distinguished from inevitability or necessity. “All have sinned” might as well mean “all start out having sinned,” or “all were created having sinned.”
There was a 100% chance of me falling into a trap you set up; giving me a way out of a trap you effectively threw me into does not rectify you having thrown me into a trap, much less be it an act of grace on your part.
Gordon
The “elect” are all still created sinners, though, sinners who start on a vector towards judgement….
.
br.d
That is an excellent example of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK!
–
Let me spell this out:
.
1) “Judgement” of the creature in Calvinism – is established by the decree – which is established at the foundation of the world before creatures are created.
.
2) An individual who is created/designed to be “ELECT” is assigned a “vector towards ELECTION”
.
3) An individual who is created/designed to be “NON-ELECT” is assigned a “vector towards NON-ELECTION”
.
4) The “vector of Judgment” for the “ELECT” is obviously not the same “vector of judgment” for the “NON-ELECT”
.
What you need to be aware of – is that Calvinism is fully saturated with self-contradictions.
And that is the reason behind Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.
The whole system of the double speak is rooted in the doctrine of original sin itself, which stems from all sin being unavoidable and infinitely criminal, which is what I’m trying to tell you.
Did you at some point in your life made an informed decision to become a sinner, to change allegiance, rebel against God whom you were fully aware of, and make it so that you must drink the Blood of Jesus lest you burn in hell?
Do you have that moment on a date in a journal, or a certificate of allegiance to the Devil issued in the mail?
Of course not. If you have sinned, you were seduced and tricked into sinning by circumstance and the fleshly lusts you were born with. You are obligated to atone with divine blood for failing to be perfect, which is an impossible task.
The idea that Jesus needed to die at all. just because you thought about sex before you got married (lust, adultery), or you thought of using something of someone else’s without first assuring permission to use it (covetuoisness, theft) is plenty absurd enough to invite lots of doublespeak.
The fact that you can’t truly earn your way into heaven, right your wrongs by yourself, or achieve God’s favor by simply being a decent person, gives a religion the license to violate the conscience in ways FUBAR, from which Calvinism is last step off the cliff of insanity. You refuse to go there, but you don’t realize how long the diving bord it is you’re standing on.
I am not talking about the nature of the atonement, but the fact that it is necessary in the first place
Since you pin point original sin as the problem, that what’s your problem?
First, using the Bible…debunk it. Don’t just stew on it, being bitter and angry.
Find out what the truth is.
My goodness. I’ve already solved that puzzle. My conclusion…
There is no such thing as original sin.
But yet, we are all sinners.
So what do you do with that?
Seek Jesus for forgiveness, or be angry all the time?
Ed Chapman
Gordon
The whole system of the double speak is rooted in the doctrine of original sin itself, which stems from all sin being unavoidable and infinitely criminal, which is what I’m trying to tell you.
.
br.d
Gordon – I understand your thinking here.
It is simply Calvinistic thinking
The reason it is “unavoidable” in Calvinism – is because the foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)
Therefore – it logically follows in Calvinism that is is unavoidable.
.
Not the NON-Calvinist system does not have EDD as its foundational core.
Therefore – human sin – in the NON-Calvinist system – is avoidable – because
.
1) In the NON-Calvinist system – Adam is granted a CHOICE between [eat] and [NOT eat]
.
2) Adam uses the liberty that is granted to him and he makes a choice
.
3) The spirit within man – which prior to Adam’s fall – has a connection with a God who loves
.
4) Due to the fall – that connection with a God who loves – is broken within man
.
5) But man is NOT MADE to do sinful things or be sinful. Man is granted CHOICE in every instance.
.
6) A God who loves – sent his Son Jesus to give his life so that you can have connection with a God who loves
.
7) And once again – you are granted CHOICE
.
8) You can accept the price that Jesus paid to provide that connection with a God who loves
.
9) You can reject the price that Jesus paid to provide that connection with a God who loves.
.
10) In Calvinism- you are not granted a CHOICE – because every impulse in your brain was FIXED by infallible decree – before you were created – and your eternal destiny was FIXED by infallible decree before you were created.
EDD isn’t necessary, as your point 4) has replaced it. I’m still born sick and commanded to be well, and told that it is of grace that I am healed of a wound afflicted on me by God’s setup. I shouldn’t have to make a decision, much less have to decide that I must join Christendom before Jesus decides to save me from his father.
Gordon
EDD isn’t necessary, as your point 4) has replaced it
br.d
Somehow I don’t think you really mean that.
.
You are granted a choice
A) Jump off the cliff
B) Do Not jump off the cliff
.
There will be a consequence in which choice you make
..
I hardly think your problem is with the fact that the decisions you make have consequences.
I think you are too smart for that.
“Do you hold others accountable for the choices you make?
I somehow don’t think so.”
God holds me accountable for a choice Adam made, yet you don’t seem to bat an eye.
The ‘cliff’ illustration is deceptive as a ‘choice’ the gospel presents when you are slipping off the cliff because it is sloped and covered with grease and mud. Sliding off the clif is neither jumping off the cliff, nor being thrown off the cliff.
The choice rather, is like if I cut off your legs (point #4), now since you can’t walk away, you can
1). accept my wheelchair and tell me how nice I am for letting you roll away, or
2). I’ll shoot you for trespassing for not walking off my property (I don’t care about you not having legs).
That is the law of sin and death, and you pretend that I am being benevolent despite cutting off your legs. And why did I cut off your legs? Because your great grandfather stepped on my great grandfather’s foot which started a clan rivalry to this day. (Adam’s sin).
Here’s your “choice” once more:
I’m going to give you a Grad Student level exam in Latin or Ancient Greek
. For this test, you have 1 month to study. Your English-speaking nature will find this unnatural, but I still expect you to be conversationally fluid in it, as, after all, there are many cognates in English. If you decide by choice to violate even the slightest nuance of orthography on my exam despite having studied for a whole month, you’ll fail, and I’ll lock you in my basement and inject you with capsacin until your heart stops beating.
But, if you memorize this phrase (there are several possibilities; you have to choose the right one) in the language thanking me for being so kind to you, I’ll let you off for deciding to fail my exam, and instead, I’ll beat my child to death because I love you so much.
That’s the demand to be sinless. If I rephrased the gospel with the vocabulary of another religion, you would be disgusted by how malicious it is. There is no proportion, and no difference in outcome between us being non-posse-non-peccare and technically-posse-non-peccare-but-always-proving-otherwise.
Leviticus 5 makes it clear that someone can “decide to” sin unknowingly and unintentionally, but still be worthy of condemnation.
Gordon
God holds me accountable for a choice Adam made
.
br.d
It is nowhere stated in scripture – that you are held accountable for a choice that someone else makes.
Adam is clearly held accountable for the choice he makes
.
However – you did suffer a consequence of the choice Adam made – the same way you would suffer a consequence from a choice that your earthly father might make.
.
My earthly father made some very bad choices.
My brothers and sisters and I suffered the consequences of his bad choices.
.
If it wasn’t for a loving God – I could have had a very devastating life
I cried out to the Lord and put my trust in him little by little
And I know of certainty that the Lord redeemed my life and gave me a life I would have not otherwise had.
.
Gordon:
The ‘cliff’ illustration is deceptive as a ‘choice’ the gospel presents when you are slipping off the cliff because it is sloped and covered with grease and mud.
.
In Calvinism – the “so called” gospel may very well be slopped and covered with mud – IF it is the case that you were created to be NON-ELECT.
.
But in NON-Calvinism – all of the choices you’ve made during your life – are what makes your situation slippery and covered with mud. But Jesus showed his love for you – because he died on the cross to save you from that.
.
Your Grad Student level exam – is a perfect example of Calvinist thinking.
Another example would be a father who ties his 7 year old daughter’s hands behind her back and then locks her into a closet and then tells her if she does not come out he will throw her into a fire pit and watch her burn to death.
.
The critical point is that he does not give her any option.
That is the God of Calvinism
.
Gordon
Leviticus 5 makes it clear that someone can “decide to” sin unknowingly and unintentionally, but still be worthy of condemnation.
.
br.d
Can you provide the verse which specifically states a person is “worthy of condemnation” in that context?
We are responsible to be sinless, despite being made sinners through Adam, as is explicitly stated by Paul. God’s failure to prevent the latter also holds us accountable for the latter.
Unless sin is condemned gratuitously, (which it might be,) all sin is worthy of condemnation, therefore unintentional sin is also worthy of condemnation. That’s what sin is. I don’t need to point to the chapter other than it having the word “sin” and the prescription of a sacrifice to prove my point.
We are still born sickly or sick (it makes no difference) and commanded to be well. if otherwise, you would be able to provide a list of people who have never ‘decided to sin,’ as proof that anyone can be sinless.
Gordon
We are responsible to be sinless, despite being made sinners through Adam
.
br.d
That is another example of Calvinistic thinking.
.
My father was abusive
There were devastating physical consequences to his children because of his violence.
So his children suffered consequences to choices he made – and they suffered by choice he made.
But his children were not responsible for what he did – nor were they responsible for his choices.
.
There is nothing in scripture that tells you – you are responsible for being sinless.
But scripture does tell you that you bear the consequences of human sin.
.
Here is Gilbert VanOrder Jr – in his book “Calvinism’s Conflicts: An Examination of the Problems in Reformed Theology” -quote
“Calvinists then have to resort to double-talk in order to explain how human responsibility is still involved even though it isn’t. If a man can do nothing to change his condition, then he cannot be held responsible for changing his condition”.
.
So in the NON-Calvinist view – you have a condition
You inherited that condition from the sins of your parents and your first parent Adam.
.
But a loving God sent is beloved son to die on a cross and be resurrected to defeat sin and death.
So you have an option.
Which means you have a choice in the matter
A loving God has given you the option of being set free from your condition.
.
But the only way you can change your condition is to accept the offer of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross – which he made for your condition.
He paid the price for your condition so that you would not have to pay that price
.
Now – if you refuse to allow Jesus to be your savior – then that is your choice.
A loving God is not going to force you – or make that decision for you..
.
And you are very much responsible for every choice you make.
I am not responsible for fixing something God of Adam broke. God or Adam is responsible for it. God made me (or set things up so that I would) suffer (or be made to suffer as a possibility or certainty) the consequences of (or condemnation for) sin, therefore God is responsible for fixing what he effectively caused me to suffer.
I was made a sinner (Romans 5:19) without my permission. I should have no need to select and convert to your religion to fix God’s action in forcing the consequences of his beef with Adam onto me.
If you give my child a birth defect by failing to tell me that the Agent Orange you’re having me work with affects my future children and not just me, you should be forced to pay all related medical treatment for that child forever, and I should not need to contact you or convert to your insurance plan to receive that payment, especially if you are infinitely wealthy.
I am broken without my permission; I don’t need to be fixed with my permission or effort, and especially not the guesswork of picking your password to heaven over all the others.
You’re putting forth your own double-talk about ‘consequences’ vs. ‘blame’ when there is no effective difference. Your god sends people to hell to torture them for not converting to your religion, whether he claims that’s the actual reason or not.
If there is an alternative to the turn or burn paradigm, tell me what you think the third options are and Biblically illustrate each possibility, otherwise you’re just putting nose rings on this pig of a fundamentally unjust and lawless religion which claims to be otherwise. It adds up to the same numbers.
Gordon…
Stop being so selfish.
You had said:
“I am broken without my permission;”
My response:
The VICTIMS of your sin didn’t give their permission to be YOUR VICTIMS, either. Everyone has hurt someone at some point in their life. Do not act like you are so self righteous and justified.
Ed Chapman
Gordon
God made me (or set things up so that I would) suffer ….
.
br.d
Once again – that thinking is Calvinistic
.
Based on that thinking – I should be blaming God for my father being violent and making his children suffer – because – (as you assert) God -quote “set my father up” to devastate his children with physical violence.
Which would mean God did not give my father any alternative.
.
That would certainly be true – with Calvinism
But I do not blame God for the choices my father made
And God does not blame me or hold me responsible for the choices my father made
.
I have a suspicion that you actually know these things.
But you are speaking out of some kind of pain that you are experiencing right now.
.
Gordon
You’re putting forth your own double-talk about ‘consequences’ vs. ‘blame’
.
br.d
That statement is simply irrational!
There is a clear difference between “blame” and “consequence”
And the example I gave you is simple enough to clearly show the difference.
No one in our society blames me for the things my father did.
And no place in scripture says I am to be blamed for the things my earthly father did – nor things my original father Adam did.
.
But those who know my family and my earthly father – certainly understand the consequences the family had to suffer..
I don’t think I need to belabor this point with you – because I think you know better – and you’re simply talking out of emotion
If you’re blamed for being abused, you “get what you deserve” and you “won’t be compensated” for your suffering, and you either convert to my religion, or burn in hell.
If you simply “suffer the consequences” of abuse, you “can’t change what happened,” and “can’t be compensated” for your suffering, (since the o e who abused you will either have converted to my religion, or burn in hell) and you either convert to my religion, or burn in hell.
God won’t take what happened to you into account when judging you; all he cares about is if you convert or not.
Abused or not, deserved or not, Christianity doesn’t care. All that matters is that you believe what I say and get infinite bliss, or believe the wrong thing or the wrong way and get infinite punishment.
There is no proportion, no justice, no real repayment according to your works, because works don’t save you from a situation you can’t avoid unless you concert to this particular religion.
So I might as well blame you for being abused, because nobody will pay you the compensation you deserve for bring abused; therefore, if God is just in the end, and doesn’t have you compensated, as you cannot add to nor subtract from eternity, then you must have had ‘deserved’ it. It doesn’t change the outcome of the celestial protection racket’s demands and threats.
You receive one denarius no matter if you started working at 9 or at 4. The owner of the vineyard doesn’t care. He will overpay other workers right in front of you, and do so just because he can.
Gordon,
Are you going to tell your maker all of your SELF PITY GARBAGE when you meet him?
Ed Chapman
br.d
At this point – I think anyone reading your posts is going to recognize – you’re either speaking out of irrational emotions – or you’re not playing with a full deck..
.
You’re saying that from the comfort of the Christian bubble. If Anne Frank rejected the Christian God, is she in hell, or heading there, and does she deserve it? It is not an ’emotional breakdown’ to recognize that there’s something deeply wrong with being doctrinally and scripturally forced to answer in the affirmative, in that if she didn’t believe the right things, then she must otherwise have been damned, and that it is somehow rightful. Don’t project it onto me if you find me reading Christianity’s message back to you to be emotionally disturbing.
Some things may be technically possible, but practically not, and while Calvinism and Non-Calvinism quibble about the difference, everyone else can see that it doesn’t matter that much.
Being told to do something you can’t do is just as cruel and rotten as being told you can’t want to do something you can’t but must do. The stairs exercise is a cruel and rotten display. In fact, putting them at the bottom of the stairs and abliging them to get to the top at all under threat of damnation is monstrous enough.
Gordon,
Anne Frank was JEWISH. She believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. YOU DON’T.
Ed Chapman
Alright, replace her with any daughter of the many non-judaeo-christian families pinned as undesirables who were also put through the camps, including communists and perverts.
Plenty of nameless non-jew and non-christian children of her very stature out of the dozen million murdered. Tell me about them and why their rejection of the ostensible god of their killers should be punished, and how it is right that they burn in hell.
Gordon,
Rejection? Or Ignorance?
Be specific.
Ed Chapman
I don’t have to be specific. Anyone who isn’t omniscient can plead ignorance about anything, as no part of the gospel can be reproduced for demonstration in experiment; but just to indulge you, they’re told by some strangers with a book whose quotes they use to hurl abuse and condemnation while calling it “truth in love” or something similar, just like you are to me, and to say what adds up to the ‘gospel’s’ substance: that because they aren’t immaculate, that they deserve to be tortured forever after they die unless they join your church, with “Jesus” and “savior” being namedropped like a Jack Chick tract. They reject this because they know that being given full knowledge after being locked into a decision and then being subjected to endless torture for a mortal’s moral shortscomings which have 100% precedent is fundamentally wrong. That’s more than enough knowledge to call a “rejection”.
Gordon,
You are not a Jew, right? So since you are not a Jew, let’s look at GENTILES.
Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 2:14-16
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Romans 13:9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Deuteronomy 30:15
See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
YOU have a CHOICE. So, again, I ask, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO CHOOSE?
FREE WILL.
You do realize that you have violated Romans 13:9, RIGHT????????????
That means that YOU created a victim. Everyone has, so don’t think that you are something SPECIAL. For all have sinned.
That means that you DID NOT LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. You did something wrong/evil against your neighbor.
You talk about victims of murder, but you refuse to look at YOUR OWN victims.
But you choose to not do anything about it, except to BLAME GOD for YOUR actions? Or, as others would say, “THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT”.
Well, as in the movie, “The Devil’s Advocate”, “I’m no puppeteer, Kevin”, and, “VANITY, MY FAVORITE SIN”.
Ed Chapman
Gordon
Just because we’re not fated to fail doesn’t mean we’re not set up to fail.
.
br.d
This is again – another example of Calvinist thinking.
In Calvinism – people are both fated and “Setup” to fall
–
John Calvin does not use the word “Fate” but he does use the word “arrange” which is equivalent of “Setup”
.
John Calvin
-quote
God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure ARRANGED it. (Institutes PDF version pg 765)
.
Calvin here does not want to tell the WHOLE TRUTH – which is the fact that – per infallible decree – Adam is not granted any ALTERNATIVE from doing that which he was commanded not to do.
.
In Calvinism – only one human act was granted to Adam.
The act of Adam eating the fruit
The infallible decree – does not grant anything that is CONTRARY to the decree
Therefore the act of Adam NOT eating the fruit was NOT granted to Adam
.
Therefore we have man both fated and “Setup” in Calvinism.
.
But that conception is unique ONLY to Calvinism.
The NON-Calvinist does not assume that Paul is a Calvinist.
It makes precious little difference: Adam, whether he had contrary choice to sin or not, was permanently denied the ability to unmake that choice. We are created unable to atone for sin. We are imfinitely more capable of vice than virtue, yet judged as though we weren’t.
Gordon
It makes precious little difference: Adam, whether he had contrary choice to sin or not, was permanently denied the ability to unmake that choice.
.
br.d
It makes all the difference in the world to me – if it is within my conscience – that it was a choice I made – and no one made it for me.
.
Do you hold others accountable for the choices you make?
I somehow don’t think so.
.
And yes – if you choose to walk off a cliff – you cannot “unmake” that choice
.
But I don’t really think that is what you are angry about
.
I think you are angry about something you haven’t yet divulged.
Gordon,
Has the thought of asking for forgiveness of your sins ever crossed your mind?
That usually solves the problem.
Just sayin,
Ed Chapman
Gordon,
I’m not Catholic, I’m not calvinist, I’m not arminian, I’m not pelegios.
There are other choices, ya know.
I don’t believe any of that, which you so eloquently laid out.
The Catholics started that mess that you laid out, worth the doctrine of original sin.
I don’t believe in that.
You should pin point Romans 2:14-16.
In that case, people are judged by their conscience. If you wronged someone, what did you do about it.
No one is hell bound unless they REJECT Jesus once the gospel is preached to them.
If it was never preached…Roman’s 2:14-16.
The doctrine of original sin has indeed created a lot of atheists, based on everything you said.
But there are other options other than those that you mentioned.
But, according to calvinists, there are no other options. To them, you can only be a calvinist, or arminian, or pelagian.
Don’t believe that lie.
“No one is hell bound unless they REJECT Jesus once the gospel is preached to them.”
So the Gospel is a chain email? You’ve just opened up a bigger can of worms.
“An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest: ‘If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?’ ‘No,’ said the priest, ‘not if you did not know.’ ‘Then why,’ asked the Inuit earnestly, ‘did you tell me?’”
Gordon,
Your comment proves the point that you refuse to listen… or proves the point that you refuse to read and study. It proves the point that you’d rather ask a priest instead of reading for yourself.
Again…Romans 2:14-16.
I never said that those who never heard don’t go to hell.
I said that those who reject the gospel do.
However, for those in ignorance, Romans 2:14-16 states that you are judged based on your conscience.
The LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF means that you don’t sin against your neighbor.
But we all have.
So what do you do about that?
You have sinned. You have the gospel. What do you do about that?
Do you ignore Jesus? Or do you ask him for forgiveness?
It’s YOUR choice on your destination, due to your own free will to reject the gift of eternal life.
So you can’t blame God if you are in eternal torment. You alone made that decision.
Stop being angry at the world, and do something about your own sins. It’s time to stop blaming the priest.
Ed Chapman.
Gordon,
Somehow my last comment didn’t post, so this might be a duplicate.
You discuss a question to a priest here.
First of all, I was discussing YOU, because you KNOW the gospel…but you reject it. YOUR OWN FREE WILL REJECTION is what gets you to hell.
For those who NEVER HEARD, they are judged by their conscience, and that’s why I mentioned Romans 2:14-16.
If you violated your conscience by stealing from your neighbor, if you don’t rectify that, YES, you just might go to hell.
But if you rectify that, NO PROBLEM.
But since you know the gospel, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? Yes, I’m using caps. And I would talk to you in that same manner if you were in front of me. Because YOU KNOW, but you REJECT. And you are playing with FIRE.
But I say that RESPECTFULLY,
Ed Chapman