Donations for the month of March


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 14,450
Joined: April 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,781
Posts54,881
Members974
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,447
Tom 4,516
chestnutmare 3,320
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,865
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 4
John_C 1
Recent Posts
1 Cor. 6:9-11
by Pilgrim - Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:02 PM
Change in NRSVue text note on 1 John 5:7
by Pilgrim - Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:07 AM
Is the church in crisis
by John_C - Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:52 AM
Jordan Peterson ordered to take sensitivity training
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:00 PM
Should Creeds be read in Church?
by Pilgrim - Mon Mar 25, 2024 6:30 AM
Do Christians have Dual Personalities: Peace & Wretchedness?
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:15 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
#9303 Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:45 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Zoe,<br><br>An agent is free, or has liberty, if he can (I don't mean "may") conduct himself as he pleases. {I say “conduct” because to consciously sit still or refrain from an action is a product of the will; so we need not act positively in order to “do” what we desire most.} The agent must have both the power and available opportunity to conduct himself as he pleases in order to have liberty. The opportunity to choose X or not X, and the power to choose according to one's desire in favor of either of the two alternatives defines liberty. A bird is free to fly but a man is not; man has the opportunity but not the power to act on his desire to fly. In the case of a man flying (unaided by means of course), his non-ability in this case would prevent his liberty. A bird would not be free if it were caged. It would have lost its advantage (i.e. opportunity), but not its power. While caged, it may fly but it can’t. Accordingly, both the opportunity and power to do as one wants must be present to have true liberty. In the case of sin, an unregenerate man has the opportunity to either sin or not, as well as the power to choose according his desire with respect to sin. His lack of moral ability, which keeps him from desiring to not sin, does not impinge upon his liberty to choose what he wants. Accordingly, man is culpable even without moral ability. What might need to be appreciated is that liberty is not concerned with the causes of the motivations that necessitate any choice. So, the issue is not whether man has the power of contrary choice, in that he must possess the power to choose with equal ease between alternatives, but rather he has liberty because he can choose as he pleases, no more no less. Moreover, God's sovereignty over our choices has no bearing on the matter. I believe you are confusing two separate matters. It's not unlike, "the woman you gave me made me do it...." Or, "the devil made me do it." OR, "God, you made me do it." <br><br>It seems to me that what you would require for moral accountability is a liberty that has self-determining power residing within itself. You require indifference to alternatives, and pure contingency as opposed to necessity in the realm of free-choice. You seem to not be able to reconcile a compatibilist view of the will with moral accountability. However, we are responsible simply because we are creatures and God has the prerogative to assess our conduct. In essence, our responsibility is predicated upon God's authority as God. Also, we are responsible for choosing according to our own desires. We choose as we want. Consider, if I am able to manipulate someone else into choosing to sin, I might share in the other person's responsibility before God, but my ability to bring about someone else's choice would in no way lessen his accountability. We seem to live in a world where our responsibility is believed to be lessened due to the influencing factors generated by others. I am not going to spend time defending how God brings to pass our choices without sinning himself, because it is not relevant to this discussion. Your concern at this time is not that God would be guilty of man's sin if he determines the choices of men; but rather your concern is that man should somehow be vindicated of his own guilt should God determine the agent's choices, which the agent makes according to his own desires.<br><br>Although motivations that necessitate choices are caused and, therefore, necessary, each choice is a product of liberty if it is conducted in accordance with desire and motivation. The liberty to choose as we want makes us responsible before our maker. Even though all choices are caused (not necessarily by finite causes (e.g. regeneration; see: WCF 5.3 Of Providence), they are made in accordance with God given liberty. {Akin to this discussion is the matter of moral ability. In passing we might note that neither before nor after the fall was Adam free in a libertarian sense, but he did have freedom from sin prior to the fall, which he lost when he lost the power, not the occasion, to desire righteousness. He kept his liberty (power and occassion) to choose as he so desired, but his thoughts were wicked continuously prior to being converted. At which time he was given once again -- restored to -- the ability to not sin. Accordingly, all men prior to regeneration and conversion have no moral ability, but men as men have liberty in all "four states" but that’s for another day I suppose.} <br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron<br>

#9304 Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:00 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The Bible never says that man is responsible. It does say man must give an account (word/logos) concerning what occurred but never does it say man is responsible.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>To save time, I should have just said: <br><br>Responsible: [b]adj. [/b] expected or obliged to account (for something, to someone); answerable; accountable 2. involving accountability, obligation, or duties [a responsible position]<br><br>Zoe,<br><br>To be obliged to give an account presupposes being responsible. What is the distinction you wish to make between giving and account and being responsible? You claim that the former is not to be equated with the latter. In light of this, please elaborate. <br><br>No doubt, God is responsible, yet without guilt, but that does not negate our responsibility before him. God gives no account, but we do because we are responsible.<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Ron

#9305 Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:18 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Zoe, <br><br>That's quite an answer. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img] At first I wasn't sure whether you were being sarcastic or not. Then I was wondering if you talk like this all the time. Finally after reading a couple of your other replies I realized that you were specifically focusing on what the Sovereign Lord was doing in your life and tried to describe that in great detail. Actually this doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under His control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground without the will of our Father. (Matt. 10:29-30) Truly it is a marvelous thing to ponder.<br><br>Only God is able, but man is responsible. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/ponder.gif" alt="ponder" title="ponder[/img]<br><br><br>Wes<br><br>


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
#9306 Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:17 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Ron and thanks for the very nice post.

I'm just curious where you draw the line as to where we are free and where we are not.

What is your idea on Romans 8:5-8 and 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 as it relates to Adam?

Before God ever created Adam did He not already have it planned out that because He made Adam flesh that the disposition of the flesh would be at enmity to Him (God) yet God created Adam flesh anyway? (see Romans 8:5-8).

And God, before He ever created Adam already knew that if He created him flesh that Adam would not be subject to the law of God, "for neither is it able"? Did not God lay down the law in the garden "Thou shalt not eat..."? knowing full well in advance that Adam was powerless to not obey that law? Yet He made a law that He knew Adam would break so that death would enter into the whole human race per (Rom.5:12) so that mankind would need a Saviour?

Clearly, it seems to me that, the cards were definately stacked against Adam.

God even created Adam soulish ([i]"psuchikon,"[/i] being the adjectival form of the noun [i]"psuche"[/i]) per 1 Corinthians 15:45,46 knowing full well in advance that "[color:red]the soulish man is not receiving that which is of the spirit of God for they are stupidity to him, and he is not able to know them...
" I really doubt that Adam could understand fully spiritual matters for he was made soulish.

Now if God did this just to do it with no remedy in sight, then we might say that that was just not right. We would have to ask ourselves "How can God be justified in doing this to the whole human race?" But since Christ was crucified from the foundation of the world, we know that before Adam was made fleshly and soulish that God already had a plan in place to undo what Adam did.

Since we are just sharing with each other, I do trust that you know that this is just a friendly dialog and I'm not trying to make anyone look bad and hope you feel the same toward me in making me look bad (I'm not saying you are by the way :)) that we are building one another up in the body of Christ and are not just trying to see who can debate better.

It surely is a blessing to be able to share these things with fellow believers in Christ!

Zoe P.S. I made the font larger because the small type is hard for me to read. Hope no one minds.

Wes #9307 Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:21 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Wes,<br>No, I was hoping no one would think I was being sarcastic. I realize it may appear that I take God's sovereignty to an extreme but I feel so comfortable knowing that God is love and if things happen in my life good or ill (thinking of Job's experience) then it is all for good and is the very best that could possibly happen since it is from the very hands of a very loving God Who is seeking my highest good.<br><br>All the very best to you dear beloved brother!<br><br>Zoe

#9308 Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:22 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Maybe I over did the large type. Sorry.<br><br>Zoe

#9309 Sat Dec 20, 2003 5:27 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]What is your idea on Romans 8:5-8 and 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 as it relates to Adam?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Zoe,<br><br>Prior to the fall Adam was not fallen. These passage refer to fallen men. The natural man is one who is still in fallen-Adam. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Before God ever created Adam did He not already have it planned out that because He made Adam flesh that the disposition of the flesh would be at enmity to Him (God) yet God created Adam flesh anyway? (see Romans 8:5-8).</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Adam was made upright with the potential of sinning or not sinning. He was not inclined to sin prior to his first sin. God did not create him “in the flesh” if what you mean by this is “fallen.” <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Did not God lay down the law in the garden "Thou shalt not eat..."? knowing full well in advance that Adam was powerless to not obey that law? Yet He made a law that He knew Adam would break so that death would enter into the whole human race per (Rom.5:12) so that mankind would need a Saviour?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Adam, like the redeemed, need operative grace to obey God. God could have upheld Adam. Therefore, God knew that Adam would fall not by knowing Adam per se, but by knowing his own sovereign plan, which included not giving Adam operative grace. God does take into account the creature in his decree, but only in the sense that he takes into account the creature that he himself ordained would be. Unlike in Arminian theology where God is constrained by the essence of the creature, God determined the creature's propenities and then decreed the overall plan according to the particulars of the plan, which he also planned. Both the particulars and the one plan are equally ultimate we might say. God does not consider the plan outside the creatures in the plan and visa versa. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Clearly, it seems to me that, the cards were definately stacked against Adam.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Adam sinned because he wanted to disobey God. God planned it. If this is stacking the deck, so be it; but the point is that Adam had liberty and he abused it according to his own will.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] I really doubt that Adam could understand fully spiritual matters for he was made soulish.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Not so, otherwise Adam would have fallen immediately – as soon as he was created. After all, what is not of faith is sin. So, since Adam had not sinned prior to the time that he did sin, he must have been conducting himself according to faith, doing what was pleasing in God’s sight prior to the fall.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Now if God did this just to do it with no remedy in sight, then we might say that that was just not right. We would have to ask ourselves "How can God be justified in doing this to the whole human race?" But since Christ was crucified from the foundation of the world, we know that before Adam was made fleshly and soulish that God already had a plan in place to undo what Adam did.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>It sounds as if you are saying that if God had not planned to redeem a people for himself that he would not have been permitted to plan the fall. That would make grace into justice, which is a no no. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/nono.gif" alt="nono" title="nono[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron<br><br>P.S. Concerning your last remark, I have no intention of not keeping this friendly. If you get too out of hand, we'll just call out the big guns. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/takethat.gif" alt="takethat" title="takethat[/img]<br><br><br>

#9310 Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:51 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 14
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 14
<br>Hello<br><br>Welcome aboard..this is an excellent board imho [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Thanks bishop3 for the welcome.<br><br>Tony

#9312 Sun Dec 21, 2003 1:09 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Well I was able to read it without using my bifocals I must admit. However, Do you see that God's sovereignty and Man's responsibility are not at odds with each other?

#9313 Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:57 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
PrestorJohn, that is truly an excellent question.<br><br>If man is responsible in the absolute sense of the word (men are responsible in a relative sense as we should be in taking care of our families and such) then yes I do see this being at odds with God's sovereignty.<br><br>"19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" (Rom.9:19). No one has been able to resist His will or intention. Yet God still finds fault, not because man is responsible (how could he be since his actions were caused by a greater force than what he could withstand?) but because that is what man needs to see, that he has faults much like a piece of pottery has faults (cracks etc). God needs to show mankind their faults in His loving wisdom.<br><br>Does this help or make matters even worse? Am I digging my hole deeper? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/scratch.gif" alt="scratch" title="scratch[/img]<br><br>Love,<br>Zoe

#9314 Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:01 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]If man is responsible in the absolute sense of the word (men are responsible in a relative sense as we should be in taking care of our families and such) then yes I do see this being at odds with God's sovereignty.<br><br>"19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" (Rom.9:19). No one has been able to resist His will or intention. Yet God still finds fault, not because man is responsible (how could he be since his actions were caused by a greater force than what he could withstand?) but because that is what man needs to see, that he has faults much like a piece of pottery has faults (cracks etc). God needs to show mankind their faults in His loving wisdom.<br><br>Does this help or make matters even worse? Am I digging my hole deeper? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>If I might cut in...<br><br>You're digging your hole deeper, Zoe. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] God doesn't punish people who are not responsible. Whether you believe it or not, you are saying, "how can he yet find fault, for who has resisted his will?" To find fault is to presuppose that someone is responsible. You have yet to show how one can be held accountable for his choices without being responsible for them. The "faults" of pottery have no relevance to ethics, so the analogy is of no use. Let's get back to basics, shall we.[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bash.gif" alt="bash" title="bash[/img]<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Ron

#9315 Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:28 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 281
I like the large font [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>Interesting discussions here.. yet still.. i'm [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/hairout.gif" alt="hairout" title="hairout[/img] hehe..(I love these smilies!)<br><br>Michele

#9316 Sun Dec 21, 2003 3:29 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Zoe,<br><br>At the risk of distracting you from other posts, where did you come up with this view that God is sovereign and man is not responsible? Does any historical or present day church, denomination or even author hold to this view? Also, this view would seem a bit Arminian in nature in that it borrows from the very same caricature that they often incite against the Reformed position. In other words, Arminians often accuse Calvinists of a doctrine that would leave man void of moral responsibility before God. <br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Ron

#9317 Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:10 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Zoe, <br>Perhaps this Sunday School lesson taught by my former OPC pastor will help clear up your confusion. <br>He was an excellent teacher, like Pilgrim.<br>Susan<br><br>Posted with permission of Pastor Lacy Andrews, now the Southeastern Regional Home Missions Director for the OPC.<br><br>

Attached Images
1-31492-electionprimerbylacy.doc (0 Bytes, 345 downloads)
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 84 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
974 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,506,457 Gospel truth