 |
| 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/8/2004 12:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | In the Hurricane thread, lock and I were discussing man's moral responsibility. As it was kind of hijacking that discussion, I have taken the liberty of starting a new one here. Input, anyone?
quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by lock
Would not what happened in Russia be evidence of the product of sin and the weakness of the flesh?
So the terrorists simply couldn't help themselves? Is that what you're saying?
John-
what are you asking? Is their actions not the result of sin in the world?
My question was very simple, and could have been answered by anyone with a yes or a no. Are not the actions of the terrorists their own responsibility?
Do you think God condemns sin or winks at it?
You seem to me to be suggesting that the terrorists were unable to do other than commit acts of terror, due to "the result of sin in the world." Is it your position that these MURDEROUS CRIMINALS simply couldn't help themselves because of "sin in the world"?
John,
That is not what I said. Of course the terroists are responsible for their actions. Would a person who is lead by the spirit of God make those choices or someone who is lead by the flesh?
If I follow what seems to me to be your LOGIC on this, it is your contention that the terrorists were NOT able to choose other than they did, as God chose not to lead them by His Spirit to do right. How this would imply responsibility on the part of the terrorists is not at all clear. By definition, responsibility is a moral ability to choose right or wrong.
Further, it would seem that your view would require that we excuse every single child molester, murderer, rapist, and whatever other kind of sinner you can think of, for they couldn't do right, because God's Spirit wasn't leading them.
The Bible states that all people will be finally judged according to their DEEDS. In your (Calvinistic-sounding) argument, it seems to me that only those led by the Spirit of God are truly responsible (able to choose to do or not do a moral action). If so, how can God righteously judge those who "couldn't help themselves"?
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
 |
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/8/2004 4:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Romans 9
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
This is not my logic, it is writen by Paul and most feel that he was inspired to write it.
Isaiah 10
15 Shall the ax boast itself against him who chops with it?
Or shall the saw exalt itself against him who saws with it?
As if a rod could wield itself against those who lift it up,
Or as if a staff could lift up, as if it were not wood!
Most would agree that Isaiah too was inspired to say this.
Rev. 20:12 "the dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books."
Are you claiming that people can chose to please God without the influence of the spirit?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/8/2004 6:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
Romans 9
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
This is not my logic, it is writen by Paul and most feel that he was inspired to write it.
The determinist assumption about Romans 9 is not the ONLY interpretation of the passage, and it is certainly not the most fitting interpretation. (You can find several good discussions of Romans 9 in the archives on this site. I highly recommend Adam Clarke's Commentary for a non-determinist interpretation of the passage).
Briefly, in context, Paul is showing how God is justified in hardening those Jews who had ALREADY rejected Him, as well as God's justice in extending covenantal mercy to believing Gentiles now.
quote:
Isaiah 10
15 Shall the ax boast itself against him who chops with it?
Or shall the saw exalt itself against him who saws with it?
As if a rod could wield itself against those who lift it up,
Or as if a staff could lift up, as if it were not wood!
In context, in Isaiah 10 God is showing his ability to use even heathen kings for His purposes, which the Open View does not deny.
quote:
Are you claiming that people can chose to please God without the influence of the spirit?
No. I am saying that ALL men have God's law revealed to their conscience (Romans 2), and all have God's law revealed to them by virtue of the created order (Romans 1), and yet they CHOOSE to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" because they "did not like to retain the knowledge of God in their minds," and therefore GOD gives them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are unseemly. In such a voluntarily depraved state, they still remain responsible for all their moral choices, because they certainly KNOW better than to live such depraved lives, even though they outwardly approve such things.
That all people are without excuse is plainly spelled out in Romans 1 and 2.
So, while it is true that no one acts righteously without the influence of the Holy Spirit, it is simply not true that the Holy Spirit does not influence all in some way--whether by revelation of the truth of God through Nature (Rom. 1), Conscience (Rom. 2), or Scripture (Romans 3). The Holy Spirit uses all of these modes of revelation, according to Paul's argument in these beginning chapters of Romans.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/10/2004 11:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by lock
Earlier in this same letter Paul uses psuchikon: 2:14, "Now the soulish (psuchikon) man is NOT RECEIVING THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD, FOR THEY ARE STUPIDITY TO HIM, AND HE IS NOT ABLE TO KNOW THEM, SEEING THAT THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY EXAMINED."
If I recall correctly, Biblical Greek scholar A.T. Robertson says the Greek term translated "is not receiving" has to do with the disposition/will of the natural man being opposed to receiving the things of God, which fits perfectly with what Paul says in Romans 1 about those who willfully REFUSE the knowledge of God. (I'll get back to you with an exact quote from Robertson's Word Pictures).
So Biblical Greek scholar A. T. Robertson totally ignored the next statement made by Paul "and he is NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND...". I would think that Mr. Robertson made this claim based on his preconceptions of what the bible teaches. Paul used psuchikon in both instances for the a reason.
Hi Lock,
Robertson was and is an renowned Southern Baptist Greek scholar. His work in the biblical Greek is an unimpeachable authority among evangelicals of every stripe. As a Southern Baptist, his presuppositions would more likely fall towards Calvinism, not free will.
That said, while it is of course true that the initiative in granting true spiritual knowledge is certainly God's initiative, as my earlier posts in this thread demonstrate, no one (except those who have completely hardened their hearts to the righteousness of God) is completely without the influence of the Spirit of God, whether through revelation found in Nature (Romans 1), Conscience (Romans 2), or Scripture (Romans 3). All men are without excuse, for they COULD choose to love God and seek further moral light from Him if they WOULD. (For example, see Cornelius in Acts 10)
If a person will not, a person can not. So long as a person refuses God's revelation, he "cannot" receive it. Again, he can not because he will not. But if a person be willing, he can receive the things of God:
John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. KJV
17If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. NIV
17 "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. NASB
The following commentaries support the view I hold, from various differing denominations:
From Robertson's Word Pictures:
Does not accept, rejects, refuses to accept. In Romans 8:7 Paul definitely states the inability (oude gar dunatai) of the mind of the flesh to receive the things of the Spirit untouched by the Holy Spirit. Certainly the initiative comes from God whose Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the things of the Spirit of God. They are no longer "foolishness" (mwria) to us as was once the case (1:23). Today one notes certain of the intelligentsia who sneer at Christ and Christianity in their own blinded ignorance.
From Barnes' Notes on the NT:
verse 14. But the natural man. (\~qucikov de anyrwpov\~.) The word natural here stands opposed evidently to spiritual. It denotes those who are governed and influenced by the natural instincts; the animal passions and desires, in opposition to those who are influenced by the Spirit of God. It refers to unregenerate men; but it has also not merely the idea of their being unregenerate, but that of their being influenced by the animal passions or desires. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 15:44". The word sensual would correctly express the idea. The word is used by the Greek writers to denote that which man has in common with the brutes; to denote that they are under the influence of the senses, or the mere animal nature, in opposition to reason and conscience. Bretschneider. See 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Here it denotes that they are under the influence of the senses, or the animal nature, in opposition to being influenced by the Spirit of God. Macknight and Doddridge render it, "the animal man." Whitby understands by it the man who rejects revelation, the man who is under the influence of carnal wisdom. The word occurs but six times in the New Testament: 1 Corinthians 15:44 twice, 1 Corinthians 15:46; James 3:15 Jude 1:19. In 1 Corinthians 15:44,46, it is rendered "natural," and is applied to the body as it exists before death, in contradistinction from that which shall exist after the resurrection-- called a spiritual body. In James 3:15, it is applied to wisdom: "This wisdom is earthly, surreal, devilish." In Jude 1:19, it is applied to sensual persons, or those who are governed by the senses, in opposition to those who are influenced by the Spirit: "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit." The word here evidently denotes those who are under the influence of the senses; who are governed by the passions and the animal appetites, and natural desires; and who are uninfluenced by the Spirit of God. And it may be observed that this was the case with the great mass of the heathen world, even including the philosophers.
Receiveth not. \~ou decetai\~. Does not embrace or comprehend them. That is, he rejects them as folly; he does not perceive their beauty or their wisdom; he despises them. He loves other things better. A man of intemperance does not receive or love the arguments for temperance; a man of licentiousness, the arguments for chastity; a liar, the arguments for truth. So a sensual or worldly man does not receive or love the arguments for religion.
The things of the Spirit of God. The doctrines which are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the things which pertain to his influence on the heart and life. The things of the Spirit of God here denote all the things which the Holy Spirit produces.
Neither can he know them. Neither can he understand or comprehend them. Perhaps, also, the word know here implies also the idea of loving, or approving of them, as it often does in the Scripture. Thus, to know the Lord often means to love him, to have a full, practical acquaintance with him. When the apostle says that the animal or sensual man cannot know those things, he may have reference to one of two things. Either,
(1.) that those doctrines were not discoverable by human wisdom, or by any skill which the natural man may have, but were to be learned only by revelation. This is the main drift of his argument, and this sense is given by Locke and Whitby. Or,
(2.) he may mean that the sensual, the unrenewed man cannot perceive their beauty and their force, even after they are revealed to man, unless the mind is enlightened and inclined by the Spirit of God. This is probably the sense of the passage. This is the simple affirmation of a fact, that while the man remains sensual and carnal, he cannot perceive the beauty of those doctrines. And this is a simple and well-known fact. It is a truth--universal and lamentable-that the sensual man, the worldly man, the proud, haughty, and self-confident man; the man under the influence of his animal appetites--licentious, false, ambitious, and vain--does not perceive any beauty in Christianity. So the intemperate man perceives no beauty in the arguments for temperance; the adulterer, no beauty in the arguments for chastity; the liar, no beauty in the arguments for truth. It is a simple fact, that while he is intemperate, or licentious, or false, he can perceive no beauty in these doctrines. But this does not prove that he has no natural faculties for perceiving the force and beauty of these arguments; or that he might not apply his mind to their investigation, and be brought to embrace them; or that he might not abandon the love of intoxicating drinks, and sensuality, and falsehood, and be a man of temperance, purity, and truth. He has all the natural faculties which are requisite in the case; and all the inability is his strong love of intoxicating drinks, or impurity, or falsehood. So of the sensual sinner. While he thus remains in love with sin, he cannot perceive the beauty of the plan of salvation, or the excellency of the doctrines of religion. He needs just the love of these things, and the hatred of sin. He needs to cherish the influences of the Spirit; to receive what he has taught, and not to reject it through the love of sin; he needs to yield himself to their influences, and then their beauty will be seen. The passage here proves that, while a man is thus sensual, the things of the Spirit will appear to him to be folly; it proves nothing about his ability, or his natural faculty, to see the excellency of these things, and to turn from his sin. It is the affirmation of a simple fact everywhere discernible, that the natural man does not perceive the beauty of these things; that while he remains in that state he cannot; and that if he is ever brought to perceive their beauty, it will be by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such is his love of sin, that he never will be brought to see their beauty except by the agency of the Holy Spirit. "For wickedness perverts the judgment, and makes men err with respect to practical principles; so that no one can be wise and judicious who is not good."--Aristotle, as quoted by Bloomfield.
They are spiritually discerned. That is, they are perceived by the aid of the Holy Spirit enlightening the mind and influencing the heart.
From Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown:
14. natural man--literally, "a man of animal soul." As contrasted with the spiritual man, he is governed by the animal soul, which overbears his spirit, which latter is without the Spirit of God (Jude 19). So the animal (English Version, "natural") body, or body led by the lower animal nature (including both the mere human fallen reason and heart), is contrasted with the Spirit-quickened body (1Co 15:44-46). The carnal man (the man led by bodily appetites, and also by a self-exalting spirit, estranged from the divine life) is closely akin; so too the "earthly." "Devilish," or "demon-like"; "led by an evil spirit," is the awful character of such a one, in its worst type (Jas 3:15).
receiveth not--though they are offered to him, and are "worthy of being received by all men" (1Ti 1:15).
they are foolishness unto him--whereas he seeks "wisdom" (1Co 1:22).
neither can he--Not only does he not, but he cannot know them, and therefore has no wish to "receive" them (Ro 8:7).
From Wesley's Notes on the NT:
Verse 14. But the natural man - That is, every man who hath not the Spirit; who has no other way of obtaining knowledge, but by his senses and natural understanding. Receiveth not - Does not understand or conceive. The things of the Spirit - The things revealed by the Spirit of God, whether relating to his nature or his kingdom. For they are foolishness to him - He is so far from understanding, that he utterly despises, them Neither can he know them - As he has not the will, so neither has he the power. Because they are spiritually discerned - They can only be discerned by the aid of that Spirit, and by those spiritual senses, which he has not. Verse 15. But the spiritual man - He that hath the Spirit. Discerneth all the things of God whereof we have been speaking. Yet he himself is discerned by no man - No natural men. They neither understand what he is, nor what he says. Verse 16. Who - What natural man. We - Spiritual men; apostles in particular. Have - Know, understand.
(All of the above quotes are public domain and available free online at studylight.org--JEE).
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | John-
This information is from men who are governed by preconceptions. They believe that we make the choice to accept God's truth or not. The natural man is unable to understand the things of God. This is a simple statement. It is not because a person chooses to not understand, it states they are unable. Only God can influence them to make the correct choice. Note the order in Romans 8:30, "Now whom He designated beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies, these He glorifies also."
The natural man is unable to understand the things of God and God will hardened them even more when it meets His purposes, as in the case of Pharoah. Paul uses psuchikon in 1 Cor. 1 and 15 for a reason.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Q= Could the Terrorists Have Chosen Otherwise?
A= Yes. And no. And yes. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/13/2004 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by lock
John-
This information is from men who are governed by preconceptions.
And you're not?  When faced with the choice between your word and the word of well-respected scholars in biblical Greek, I'm gonna have to go with the well-respected scholars' opinions over yours. Sorry. (By the way, Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown is a conservative Calvinist commentary, and none of the scholars I cited above deny that people need the influence of the Holy Spirit to do right).
quote:
Only God can influence them to make the correct choice.
I agree, and the scholars I cite above agree as well.
quote:
The natural man is unable to understand the things of God and God will hardened them even more when it meets His purposes, as in the case of Pharoah. Paul uses psuchikon in 1 Cor. 1 and 15 for a reason.
I don't think it is sound hermeneutics to jump around to other passages in the Bible when discussing a particular passage.
So you are saying that Paul or the holy spirit, for that matter, did not know what they were doing when using the same Greek words in both instances? I think that there is more consistancy in the Bible that that!
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/13/2004 8:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
quote:
Originally posted by lock
John-
This information is from men who are governed by preconceptions. They believe that we make the choice to accept God's truth or not. The natural man is unable to understand the things of God.
Your premise is that you are a natural man, corrupt in all his ways, depraved in thought and deed and word.
Then you claim to understand spiritual matters.
See the paradox?
There is only a paradox in the eyes of the OT'ers. I never claimed that I am capable of understanding the things of God without the influence of the God's holy spirit.
Actually atheists, buddhists, muslims, taoists, democrats, republicans anyone who understands logic would see the paradox of your claims.
The paradox is that you cannot know you are under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
If your corrupt, natural man REALLY wanted to fool you, wouldn't he convince you that you were spiritually alive even though you aren't?
Yes, yes I have heard this arguement. Mr. Khan-
The natural man cannot understand the things of God and therefore thinks they are stupidity (1 Cor. 2:14, 15). This is not MY view, it is a clear statement from God through Paul. That fact alone that I am able to realize the fact that my totally depraved, corrupt, flesh is unable to please God without His influence is proof alone for me that I am a new creation in Christ. The atheists, buddists, muslims, taoists, democrats, republicans, and OT'ers can disagree with me, but then present your view and give scripture to back it. If your view does not involve scripture then I am not interested in it, no offense.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/13/2004 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
And you're not? When faced with the choice between your word and the word of well-respected scholars in biblical Greek, I'm gonna have to go with the well-respected scholars' opinions over yours. Sorry. (By the way, Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown is a conservative Calvinist commentary, and none of the scholars I cited above deny that people need the influence of the Holy Spirit to do right).
John-
I have no problem with your siding with the experts. I have stated many times that I am not a Calvinist, nor do I agree with their view of scripture. As for my preconsumptions, I have had to un-learn so many different things just to begin to understand the truth in scripture that is veiled by christian theology and mistranslations. My "preconceptions" is to never just take someone's word for it (even the experts), but to seek out and find the truth which God has concealed in His holy scriptures, just as the Bereans in Paul's time. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the hounor of kings is to search out a matter." (Prov. 25:2).
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/13/2004 1:02 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
quote:
Originally posted by lock
Paul, the worst of sinners, was overwhelmed by the grace of God (1 Tim 1:13, 14).
Paul got a heavenly vision and then:
Acts 26:19 "So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision"
was obedient to the heavenly vision.
What would have happened if Paul had proved disobedient to the heavenly vision?
It was Paul (inspired by the holy spirit) who wrote Phil 2:13, "... for it is God Who is operating in you to will as well as to work for the sake of His delight."
Amen. No one who believes in OVTism needs to deny this truth. God works in us to will and to do, all glory be to Him. But the verse does not require a monergistic view of moral free agency. If I choose to yield to the Spirit of God, it is still HIM influencing, illuminating, instructing, persuading, enabling, and working in me.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
| 208 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:28 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|