Sovereignty of God and Moral Responsibility of Man
- Thread starter Elin
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
Again with the un humble remarks.
why do you have to say removed. Why can yu never say in your opinion?
No one is arguing that God is not just to judge a man who can not do good.. Thus you just wasted a whole page in arguing an argument I have never personally heard,, and probably no one makes.
I hope you did not spend to much time on it.
We ALL deserve to be judged, As in adam all die.. just being a son of adam, even without personal sin, we are deserving of judgment, this is what scripture says,
God condemned the whole human race the moment adam sinned, everyone was condemned before they were even born, before they even had the ability to commit one sin on their own. so I respectuflly do not see th epoint of this article.
why do you have to say removed. Why can yu never say in your opinion?
No one is arguing that God is not just to judge a man who can not do good.. Thus you just wasted a whole page in arguing an argument I have never personally heard,, and probably no one makes.
I hope you did not spend to much time on it.
We ALL deserve to be judged, As in adam all die.. just being a son of adam, even without personal sin, we are deserving of judgment, this is what scripture says,
God condemned the whole human race the moment adam sinned, everyone was condemned before they were even born, before they even had the ability to commit one sin on their own. so I respectuflly do not see th epoint of this article.
Thanks for explaining
I do actually agree with a lot of what you have written on this subject .But should the Christian view this subject that if a mans will were absolutely free he could choose never to sin? Or am I musunderstanding again and you are speaking solely of people who have not come to Christ?
You quoted ROM8:7&8
The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. [SUP]7 [/SUP]The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. [SUP]8 [/SUP]Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. [SUP]9[/SUP]You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you
The above seems to me to say that though it is natural to us to be goverened by the flesh, we cannot please God according to what verses 7&8 state. We have to go by verses 6&9 for the spiritual reality for the Christian. And this would seem to me anyway to back up Rom6:14
A minister on another website put it this way:
It is a biblical truth that if we always followed after the Holy Spirit's leading we would never sin, the reality of which escapes us all.
Does that reality escape us because we have no choice but to sin because we do not have absolutely free will to follow after the Holy Spirit, or because we choose of our own volition to follow after the flesh at times rather than the Spirit when we do not have to?
I admit myself to in my life having followed after the flesh at times when i could have followed after the Spirit, it would not have been impossible to do so, and I am sure I am not alone in that. Is there a danger that if we say a Christian has no choice than but to sin ebcause they do not have a completely free will to follow after the Holy Spirit, some may take it as an excuse for their sin?
Should we view this subject that Christ was a once and for all eternal sacrifice for our sin, because we would not be able to follow after the Holy Spirit due to not having completely free will, or was He a once and for all time sacrifice for our sin, because God knew we would often choose of our own volition not to follow after the Holy Spirit, which is the best way to look at it?
If I have again misunderstood what you were saying I apologise.
I do actually agree with a lot of what you have written on this subject .But should the Christian view this subject that if a mans will were absolutely free he could choose never to sin? Or am I musunderstanding again and you are speaking solely of people who have not come to Christ?
You quoted ROM8:7&8
The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. [SUP]7 [/SUP]The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. [SUP]8 [/SUP]Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. [SUP]9[/SUP]You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you
The above seems to me to say that though it is natural to us to be goverened by the flesh, we cannot please God according to what verses 7&8 state. We have to go by verses 6&9 for the spiritual reality for the Christian. And this would seem to me anyway to back up Rom6:14
A minister on another website put it this way:
It is a biblical truth that if we always followed after the Holy Spirit's leading we would never sin, the reality of which escapes us all.
Does that reality escape us because we have no choice but to sin because we do not have absolutely free will to follow after the Holy Spirit, or because we choose of our own volition to follow after the flesh at times rather than the Spirit when we do not have to?
I admit myself to in my life having followed after the flesh at times when i could have followed after the Spirit, it would not have been impossible to do so, and I am sure I am not alone in that. Is there a danger that if we say a Christian has no choice than but to sin ebcause they do not have a completely free will to follow after the Holy Spirit, some may take it as an excuse for their sin?
Should we view this subject that Christ was a once and for all eternal sacrifice for our sin, because we would not be able to follow after the Holy Spirit due to not having completely free will, or was He a once and for all time sacrifice for our sin, because God knew we would often choose of our own volition not to follow after the Holy Spirit, which is the best way to look at it?
If I have again misunderstood what you were saying I apologise.
Last edited:
Yes, that was the case with Adam.
His will was absolutely free because his spirit possessed Holy Spirit life, and his nature was perfect.
He had the ability to choose to live a sinless life.
And we would have to be the same as Adam to execute such a choice.
That changes the whole game.
We cannot have the absolutely free will of Adam with our unregenerate spirit and our imperfect, fallen nature.
And because our will cannot be absolutely free, we cannot choose to live a sinless life.
An absolutely free will comes only with a perfect human nature.
That escapes us because we do not have the ability to do what you propose.
Sin is not just in our choices and actions.
Sin is in our motives, inclinations, preferences (of self over God), etc.
We often cannot even see or know a lot of our sin.
Our motives are not always discernable to us.
That we are preferring ourself to God is not always discernible to us.
We do not have the ability to detect all our sin so we can give it up.
It goes much deeper than just volition.
There is a lot in us that we aren't even aware of to make a choice about.
That is a gradual sanctifying process as God gradually shows us these things.
Only when we are aware of them can we make choices regarding them.
And since they are so innate, that's not done in one leap.
His will was absolutely free because his spirit possessed Holy Spirit life, and his nature was perfect.
He had the ability to choose to live a sinless life.
And we would have to be the same as Adam to execute such a choice.
That changes the whole game.
We cannot have the absolutely free will of Adam with our unregenerate spirit and our imperfect, fallen nature.
And because our will cannot be absolutely free, we cannot choose to live a sinless life.
An absolutely free will comes only with a perfect human nature.
That escapes us because we do not have the ability to do what you propose.
Sin is not just in our choices and actions.
Sin is in our motives, inclinations, preferences (of self over God), etc.
We often cannot even see or know a lot of our sin.
Our motives are not always discernable to us.
That we are preferring ourself to God is not always discernible to us.
We do not have the ability to detect all our sin so we can give it up.
It goes much deeper than just volition.
There is a lot in us that we aren't even aware of to make a choice about.
That is a gradual sanctifying process as God gradually shows us these things.
Only when we are aware of them can we make choices regarding them.
And since they are so innate, that's not done in one leap.
Re: Sover"eignty of God and Moral Responsibility of Man
But there are no anthropomorphisms in God's use of the word "forekowledge."
The doctrine that comes from that is stated by Paul following it:
1) "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will? . .What if God
did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy,
whom he prepared in advance for glory--even us, whom he also called."
Ro 9:19-24)
That's salvation.
2) "Israel who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it." (Ro 9:31)
Righteousness has no other bearing that on salvation.
3) "Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith, but as if it were by works." (Ro 9:31-32)
Faith is about salvation.
I dunno'. It seems plain to me that salvation is the doctrine which comes from Paul's treatment
of God's justice in election.
But there are no anthropomorphisms in God's use of the word "forekowledge."
The doctrine that comes from that is stated by Paul following it:
1) "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will? . .What if God
did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy,
whom he prepared in advance for glory--even us, whom he also called."
Ro 9:19-24)
That's salvation.
2) "Israel who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it." (Ro 9:31)
Righteousness has no other bearing that on salvation.
3) "Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith, but as if it were by works." (Ro 9:31-32)
Faith is about salvation.
I dunno'. It seems plain to me that salvation is the doctrine which comes from Paul's treatment
of God's justice in election.
Last edited:
A
Re: Sover"eignty of God and Moral Responsibility of Man
'
Ok i did say something like that...but the text your taking it from shows both hardening and mercy
leading to salvation for Israel and also for the gentiles. Without writing a page or two explaining
that all i can say is that your taking a passage that explains something else and making salvation doctrine
from it. You cant because hardening has more application than damnation. If you dont see that then your in error.
If thats how you see it than noone from Israel could ever have been saved, ever.
Why do you think Pharaoh is mentioned? Just for God to say Hes boss? Why go into the patriarchs? Just to show God can pick if He wants to? Your missing the major point if the message using it for salvation doctrine. When Paul is only explaining what was going on with Israel. If you want salvation doctrine try Jesus in His entire message. And Look at
the entire bible with it.
Sure the text talks about faith and such...that is important...but only as far as the bigger picture "whats up with Israel"?
Dispensationalists do the same thing not understanding the point of 9-11 and wrongly come up with a wrong eschatology
also.
'
Ok i did say something like that...but the text your taking it from shows both hardening and mercy
leading to salvation for Israel and also for the gentiles. Without writing a page or two explaining
that all i can say is that your taking a passage that explains something else and making salvation doctrine
from it. You cant because hardening has more application than damnation. If you dont see that then your in error.
If thats how you see it than noone from Israel could ever have been saved, ever.
Why do you think Pharaoh is mentioned? Just for God to say Hes boss? Why go into the patriarchs? Just to show God can pick if He wants to? Your missing the major point if the message using it for salvation doctrine. When Paul is only explaining what was going on with Israel. If you want salvation doctrine try Jesus in His entire message. And Look at
the entire bible with it.
Sure the text talks about faith and such...that is important...but only as far as the bigger picture "whats up with Israel"?
Dispensationalists do the same thing not understanding the point of 9-11 and wrongly come up with a wrong eschatology
also.
Last edited:
Re: Sover"eignty of God and Moral Responsibility of Man
what else would it be but salvation (and individual at that)?
that part i didn't get.
their election as the chosen nation through which came the Law & Prophets & Promises had already culminated in the coming forth of Messiah and The Fulfillment of the Promise by the time Paul wrote the letter.
some branches were cut off from that tree because of unbelief.
and gentiles were grafted in.
i don't see how the election discussed by paul could be anything other than salvation - otherwise you're nearly back to Dual Covenant/or a Dual Kingdom type-theology. or a kind of reversing of the whole thing (the Stone suddenly not becoming a mountain).
maybe i'm missing something. help me out on it Elin...if i'm missing something.
*processing*
excellent thread(s) Elin. thanks so much for all the hard work.
i appreciate it.
what else would it be but salvation (and individual at that)?
that part i didn't get.
their election as the chosen nation through which came the Law & Prophets & Promises had already culminated in the coming forth of Messiah and The Fulfillment of the Promise by the time Paul wrote the letter.
some branches were cut off from that tree because of unbelief.
and gentiles were grafted in.
i don't see how the election discussed by paul could be anything other than salvation - otherwise you're nearly back to Dual Covenant/or a Dual Kingdom type-theology. or a kind of reversing of the whole thing (the Stone suddenly not becoming a mountain).
maybe i'm missing something. help me out on it Elin...if i'm missing something.
*processing*
excellent thread(s) Elin. thanks so much for all the hard work.
i appreciate it.
Re: Sover"eignty of God and Moral Responsibility of Man
I don't see anything you are missing.
Ro 9 is in context of Paul's previous statement that nothing can separate us from the love of God (8:39).
Which immediately raises the question: Are you sure about that? What about Israel? They are cut off.
Paul then proceeds to explain in Ro 9 that God's elect, the remnant (11:5) in Israel, are not cut off,
that all the descendants of Abraham were not the people of God, just as Ishmael and Esau were not (vv. 6-8),
that God's choice of Jacob was based only in his sovereign election (vv. 10-13),
that God's sovereign election is not unjust (v.14)
because he has the right to have mercy on whom he chooses (vv. 15-16),
and to harden whom he choses, as he did with Pharoah (vv. 17-18).
He then addresses man's objection to God's sovereignty in hardening some (v.19),
by reminding them that He is God, and they are not (vv. 21-22),
and even suggests a reason for God hardening some; i.e.,
as a foil for the backdrop of his mercy (vv. 22-24).
So there appears to be something more important in God's economy than the salvation of all men.
And God's response to our troubled hearts in light of all this is, "Trust me."
I don't see anything you are missing.
Ro 9 is in context of Paul's previous statement that nothing can separate us from the love of God (8:39).
Which immediately raises the question: Are you sure about that? What about Israel? They are cut off.
Paul then proceeds to explain in Ro 9 that God's elect, the remnant (11:5) in Israel, are not cut off,
that all the descendants of Abraham were not the people of God, just as Ishmael and Esau were not (vv. 6-8),
that God's choice of Jacob was based only in his sovereign election (vv. 10-13),
that God's sovereign election is not unjust (v.14)
because he has the right to have mercy on whom he chooses (vv. 15-16),
and to harden whom he choses, as he did with Pharoah (vv. 17-18).
He then addresses man's objection to God's sovereignty in hardening some (v.19),
by reminding them that He is God, and they are not (vv. 21-22),
and even suggests a reason for God hardening some; i.e.,
as a foil for the backdrop of his mercy (vv. 22-24).
So there appears to be something more important in God's economy than the salvation of all men.
And God's response to our troubled hearts in light of all this is, "Trust me."
A
Re: Sover"eignty of God and Moral Responsibility of Man
Election does not always mean Salvation. God elects People and Nations.
They do His will not all are saved. Im not saying election, salvation, etc is not
in these passages im saying it has to be understood to not be guide to make
salvation doctrine from. Because of the main theme. Israel.
Election does not always mean Salvation. God elects People and Nations.
They do His will not all are saved. Im not saying election, salvation, etc is not
in these passages im saying it has to be understood to not be guide to make
salvation doctrine from. Because of the main theme. Israel.
IV. Moral Responsibility of Mankind for Adam's Sin:
So the sovereignty of God in the actions of men does not violate man's free will, and
God is just in holding man morally responsible for sin even though he is unable to obey God.
However, not only is man morally responsible for his own sin, unregenerate mankind is also morally responsible for Adam's sin.
The Bible teaches that we are born spiritually dead (Ge 2:17; Eph 2:1; Col 2:13) in unbelief and condemned to damnation (Jn 3:18b-19, 36).
In Ro 5:12-21, the Bible establishes our personal responsibility for this condemnation into which we are born, where two illustrations are used to show that unregenerate man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression.
1) In vv. 12-14, the Bible shows that even those who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Ro 4:15, 5:13) died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12)
of the sin ("sin was in the world," v.13) of Adam's transgression,
because that was the only sin of transgression in the world that could cause them to be guilty of death (Ro 6:23).
In vv. 15-16, the Bible contrasts, and then
2) in vv. 17-19, the Bible parallels the trespass of Adam and the righteousness of Jesus Christ, to show the Biblical principle which is involved.
Note that in v. 18, the Bible states that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass, just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.
Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1Co 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement) in the two of them is of the same nature (1Co 15:22).
In one man we were made sinners, just as in one man we are made righteous.
The Bible is drawing clear parallelisms of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither half of the parallel does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what mankind did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelism would be destroyed.
The clear meaning is that Adam's guilt is imputed to us, just as (in the same way) Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, which is the Biblical principle of imputation the Bible reveals here.
So the Bible teaches that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for (guilty of) the sentence of condemnation into which he is born because of the guilt of Adam which is imputed to him.
But that raises the question, if man did not personally incur the sin of Adam, how can God justly hold man morally responsbile for that sin?
The analogy of the Anthropos family business is helpful here.
As long as the Anthropos son of future generations, who successively inherits the family business (not a corp, partnership, LLC etc.), keeps up the family business, he is personally responsible for the debts of that business, even though he did not personally incur those debts.
The prinicple here is that personal responsbility for debt does not require that the debt be personally incurred.
That legal priniple is also a Biblical principle.
Because man is the son of Adam, keeping up the family businss of Adam (sin), he is responsible for the debt of Adam, even though he did not personally incur that debt.
We have an example of that principle in Lk 11:48-51, where Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors of (experts in) the law responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world;
because in rejecting and murdering Christ (Ac 7:51-52), the Prophet whom Moses said was to come (Dt 18:18; Jn 1:21, 6:14, 12:49; Ac 3:22-23),
they were keeping up their forefathers' business of rejecting amd murdering God's prophets and were, therefore, liable for all the debts (sins) of their forefathers' business of murder (v.51).
So, in the same way as Jesus held the Jewish doctors of the law responsible/guilty of the sin of their forefathers, even though they did not personally incur their sin,
so unregenerate man is responsible/guilty for the sin of Adam, even though he did not personally incur his sin (Ro 1:32).
So Biblically, as well as in our legal system, there is no injustice in God holding unregenerate mankind morally responsbile for the sin of Adam which he did not personally incur.
And the third objection, that God is unjust in holding mankind morally responsible for Adam's sin, is removed.
to be con't.
So the sovereignty of God in the actions of men does not violate man's free will, and
God is just in holding man morally responsible for sin even though he is unable to obey God.
However, not only is man morally responsible for his own sin, unregenerate mankind is also morally responsible for Adam's sin.
The Bible teaches that we are born spiritually dead (Ge 2:17; Eph 2:1; Col 2:13) in unbelief and condemned to damnation (Jn 3:18b-19, 36).
In Ro 5:12-21, the Bible establishes our personal responsibility for this condemnation into which we are born, where two illustrations are used to show that unregenerate man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression.
1) In vv. 12-14, the Bible shows that even those who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Ro 4:15, 5:13) died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12)
of the sin ("sin was in the world," v.13) of Adam's transgression,
because that was the only sin of transgression in the world that could cause them to be guilty of death (Ro 6:23).
In vv. 15-16, the Bible contrasts, and then
2) in vv. 17-19, the Bible parallels the trespass of Adam and the righteousness of Jesus Christ, to show the Biblical principle which is involved.
Note that in v. 18, the Bible states that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass, just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.
Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1Co 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement) in the two of them is of the same nature (1Co 15:22).
In one man we were made sinners, just as in one man we are made righteous.
The Bible is drawing clear parallelisms of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither half of the parallel does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what mankind did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelism would be destroyed.
The clear meaning is that Adam's guilt is imputed to us, just as (in the same way) Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, which is the Biblical principle of imputation the Bible reveals here.
So the Bible teaches that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for (guilty of) the sentence of condemnation into which he is born because of the guilt of Adam which is imputed to him.
But that raises the question, if man did not personally incur the sin of Adam, how can God justly hold man morally responsbile for that sin?
The analogy of the Anthropos family business is helpful here.
As long as the Anthropos son of future generations, who successively inherits the family business (not a corp, partnership, LLC etc.), keeps up the family business, he is personally responsible for the debts of that business, even though he did not personally incur those debts.
The prinicple here is that personal responsbility for debt does not require that the debt be personally incurred.
That legal priniple is also a Biblical principle.
Because man is the son of Adam, keeping up the family businss of Adam (sin), he is responsible for the debt of Adam, even though he did not personally incur that debt.
We have an example of that principle in Lk 11:48-51, where Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors of (experts in) the law responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world;
because in rejecting and murdering Christ (Ac 7:51-52), the Prophet whom Moses said was to come (Dt 18:18; Jn 1:21, 6:14, 12:49; Ac 3:22-23),
they were keeping up their forefathers' business of rejecting amd murdering God's prophets and were, therefore, liable for all the debts (sins) of their forefathers' business of murder (v.51).
So, in the same way as Jesus held the Jewish doctors of the law responsible/guilty of the sin of their forefathers, even though they did not personally incur their sin,
so unregenerate man is responsible/guilty for the sin of Adam, even though he did not personally incur his sin (Ro 1:32).
So Biblically, as well as in our legal system, there is no injustice in God holding unregenerate mankind morally responsbile for the sin of Adam which he did not personally incur.
And the third objection, that God is unjust in holding mankind morally responsible for Adam's sin, is removed.
to be con't.
A
Every place ive read where a man or nation was hardened they were already hardened and
desired or willed something first. Pharaoh hardened his own heart the bible provides that info.
The same through history they hardened their hearts first. God then hardened it more so they
would have resolve and He would work His purpose. Ive found no place where God hardened
anyones heart that wasnt hardened already just to destroy them or send them to hell.
With Pharaoh for instance The world got a loud sermon about the God of Israel. Even over in Canaan
people got the news.
The reason Paul even goes into that is to show Israels hard hearts God made harder(blindness)So they
would have resolve. They did and Killed their Messiah.
So that the world would see it again. Gentiles were allowed in....Israel was to get jealous(which they did)
Then they were shown mercy if they believed. And regrafted which they were. It says He found them "all"
in unbelief, so He could show mercy on all. So hardening again is not necessarily damnation. God has His
purposes in it....in this case Paul is explaining to bring in the gentiles and then bring them back. A temporary thing.
So Romans 9 is not about whether God can do as He pleases (although He can) but the topic
is about Israel, not individual election, nor salvation(although its present somewhat in the text)
It primarily about God choice to use Israel how He sees fit. Which by the way is a story of pure mercy.
But its a issue of national election not individual in Romans 9.
Later ill make a post to show if hardening means damned then no Israelite was saved since they were
hardened(romans 9 says blinded, same thing)
desired or willed something first. Pharaoh hardened his own heart the bible provides that info.
The same through history they hardened their hearts first. God then hardened it more so they
would have resolve and He would work His purpose. Ive found no place where God hardened
anyones heart that wasnt hardened already just to destroy them or send them to hell.
With Pharaoh for instance The world got a loud sermon about the God of Israel. Even over in Canaan
people got the news.
The reason Paul even goes into that is to show Israels hard hearts God made harder(blindness)So they
would have resolve. They did and Killed their Messiah.
So that the world would see it again. Gentiles were allowed in....Israel was to get jealous(which they did)
Then they were shown mercy if they believed. And regrafted which they were. It says He found them "all"
in unbelief, so He could show mercy on all. So hardening again is not necessarily damnation. God has His
purposes in it....in this case Paul is explaining to bring in the gentiles and then bring them back. A temporary thing.
So Romans 9 is not about whether God can do as He pleases (although He can) but the topic
is about Israel, not individual election, nor salvation(although its present somewhat in the text)
It primarily about God choice to use Israel how He sees fit. Which by the way is a story of pure mercy.
But its a issue of national election not individual in Romans 9.
Later ill make a post to show if hardening means damned then no Israelite was saved since they were
hardened(romans 9 says blinded, same thing)
Last edited: