The Scriptures, New and Old Testament alike, are replete with admonitions, commandments, exhortations, directions, requirements, laws, and dictates from God to man that openly and unquestionably reveal than man has a responsibility before God. Now everyone believes a saved man is responsible to God, the question is does a lost man have a responsibility toward God or does his sinful condition render him totally dead and unable to be accountable at all? Is the sin of Adam the only act a sinner must answer for or are there acts of his own volition for which he is responsible toward God?
Let me focus on one particular letter from the Apostle Paul, a piece of doctrinal literature that many feel is the single most complete theological treatise in all the New Testament. It is the book of Romans which is a masterpiece of doctrinal revelation especially concerning the lostness of man and the gospel itself. Let us begin with the first chapter in which God gives us a tiny but illuminating glimpse into God’s interaction between Himself and lost man.
38 Comments(+Add)
Very, very good article/post.
There is no doubt that we have responsibility to respond to the word of God. One scripture I love is in John 3 when Jesus was speaking with Nicodemus and he told him (paraphrased):
“This is the problem – that light has come into the world, but men prefer darkness rather than light.”
Each and every one of us are accountable for our actions and responses to God’s words and (if you’ve never had a chance to hear them) His principles which are written in the conscience.
Wow, such a good change from Camp Calvin. Thanks!
Steve Camp???? Sorry couldn’t resist.
I didn’t think of that actually! I was just more thinking of how I’m sick of all the reformed articles on the ‘net.
The notion that man cannot know about God or even seek Him while still unredeemed is unbiblical and also dangerous. Of course no one can come to Christ without the Spirit, but even fallen man sees creation and realizes the existence of God.
In their fleshly attempt to magnify the sovereignty of God they have changed His truth, formed them into doctrines, and now idolize them. Some of them anyway.
Rick,
Scripture seems to differ with you on this.
DT
The need to make “sovereignty” the primary defining characteristic of God always translates to the need for God to “be in control” thus making God’s people the locus of “control”. Never mind that such an elevation of one attribute stands in conflict to explicit statements in Scripture about the being of God…
They confuse the economy of how God can work with God’s essence.
It’s a big attempt at theologizing fear and insecurity.
I don’t blame Calvin. I blame those who have developed his thought.
It is a theology based upon a limited collection of Scripture while explaining away other Scriptural teachings. Some who esouse that view are humble and do not see themselves as having a doctrinal epiphany which looks down upon all others.
But some others who espouse that view exhibit much different traits.
Hello Rick,
I disagree with you and i believe that degenerate men are blind and hence cannot see God unless God enables them. Thats it.
I disagree with your assessment that [It is a theology based upon a limited collection of Scripture ]. I rather believe the opposite actually. Anyone has stats here?
Go camp calvin? *hoorah*
Rick,
When we are all standing before the Throne of God I will be watching for you to let God and all the others know how happy you are that YOU chose God. You know, the 50-50 deal. God does His part and you do your part.
DT
NC and Rick,
Can we get some of those ‘other Scriptural teachings’, and ‘explicit statements in Scripture ‘ that you’re talking about that prove your systematic theology? You’ve made some hard claims against ‘the other side’, but haven’t backed them up, so I’m just reminding you, some of us (me) are sitting here going….SHARE SHARE PLEASE!!!!! I like new information, and even though I’ve read every verse in the Bible multiple times (not bragging, as you will see), I realize I miss a lot and that eisogesis comes in to play sometimes too.
Thanks!!
Joe
PS Rick, why is it dangerous and unbiblical to believe that ‘unregenerate man’ cannot seek God without God’s help? Statements like that without showing why, freak me out, because if it’s dangerous, I don’t want to be in danger for believing that. But if you don’t explain yourself and prove your point, you just leave me hanging, and that’s no good. Thanks. (PPS, also remember, I’ve never read a systematic theology, or old pastor theology books (like calvin or luther etc), I’m just going off my own years of studying the Bible. So if y’all know something I don’t, share, don’t just ‘talk’. Thanks a lot!!
Rick,
Permit me to say a bit.
[romans 8] 5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God
verse 7b: 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.
1) its does not submit
2) it cannot submit
Cannot means it lacks the ability to do something ‘cannot swim’means even if i jump into the water, i cannot swim.
[Romans 3]
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
[purpose of adding the law]
(romans 5) 20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
[galatians 3]
15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
What does this tell us? No man can keep the law by his own. Hence men is degenerate – cannot keep it and will not keep it (the law). Simple.
Also Rick, I can’t read your blog on this government computer, it restricts it, so if you’ve explained it in your article on you blog, I’m sorry for asking. But if you’ve not given your Scriptures and evidence in your blog for your claims in the posts, then please do. Thanks!
Lance,
What you’re saying is good, and is how I always understood it without outside influence. I don’t think man can, on his own, do good on God’s terms. God must work on man before man can seek God and be useful to Him.
Joe
Joe C,
I wrote the above without reading your comment. wow. looks like i attempted to give you some stuff? lol
Joe,
Here’s a classic…
God is love. (I John 4)
When taken together with the doctrine of the Trinity, it brings balance to the assertion that sovereignty is the defining characteristic of God
Joe,
Me too. I pretty much understood the same thing without outside theologian influence. Looks like we think similiarly.
nc,
God is both love and sovereign. Love and hate are antagonistic. Love and sovereignty? Thats quite far fetched.
i qualify myself. God is love, sovereign amongst other characteristics
The way I look at it is like this. If man has no responsibility in salvation, how can God him accountable for his sins? You can’t have accountability without responsibility. To speak of God damning someone who never had a real choice just seems ridiculous to me.
Phil,
Lets say i am a mass murderer. So by the law, i deserve to be hanged? Lethal injection etc? Hence i am responsible no doubt.
But i appeal to the president of the united states, who has the ability to pardon. He pardons me, even when i am totally degenerate to forgive my own transgression of committing mass murder.
So in the same analogy, when God intervenes and pardons our sins, we were responsible, but grace abounded and removed the transgression. But we were responsible and the sin was paid for initially upon my sentence to lethal injection before the pardon.
Simple.
My post gives many Scriptures in Romans about a fallen man’s capability of knowing God and rejecting that knowledge. About fallen man seeking God here are some other Scriptures:
Lk.13:24-27 – Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
24Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
25When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
26Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
27But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
Lk.17:32-34 – 33Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
Jn.6:25-27 – 25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Acts 17:26-28 – And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Heb.11:6 – But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
God bids men to seek Him and regeneration is the Work of the Spirit alone by man’s faith. To say no man can seek God is not only wrong as in Lk.13:24 states that some will seek but it will be too late. Additionally II Thess.2:11 teaches that God will send strong delusion to some sinners, so why would a totally depraved sinner who can never seek God have to have God make him believe a lie?
Lance, you said you appealed to the President so you sought his pardon.
Simple.
Yeah Lance, that was a bad example. It’s simple, though Phil, how God holds man responsible.
God doesn’t intervene with that person, thus that person follows his own natural tendancies to hate and sin against God, and it’s still his own fault, and he will be called to account for his deeds at the Judgment. That’s how I see it at least. God chooses whom He wants to draw to Him, though I’m not sure if this is irresistable or not, and He also chooses whom not to have mercy upon. Why else is it written that way? It seems so plain in Romans 9 to me, guys… Who are we to question God anyways? We might say it’s not fair, but that’s ‘unfair’ to our little human minds. God determines what is fair and good and what isn’t. And besides, we all deserve hell, so God is perfectly legitimate in only working on a few people (comparitavely).
Rick, I like some of those verses, I will consider them. About the strong delusion: God makes those sinners believe a strong delusion, yes, but that doesn’t mean that they could seek God anyways. Also, have you considered that may be talking about why they cannot seek in the first place, because they’ve been given a strong delusion (I don’t think so, just throwin it out there though)? Also, from your perspective, what happens to the ‘free will’ to seek God of those ‘poor’ individuals whom God basically forces to believe a lie and be damned? I see major inconsistencies here Rick, that’s all. You decry no freedom to seek God without God’s help, but then you use a Scripture declaring God sending a lie to unbelievers so that they can absolutely never be saved and are forced to be damned? That makes no sense from your perspective Rick, I hope you can see what I mean.
Thanks a lot guys!
Joe
Lance,
We’re all sinners, no doubt. But, through Jesus’ death and resurrection, God has offered everyone a way of redemption. God already made the first move, and the Holy Spirit is working to call everyone. Whether or not they reject that call is up to a person.
This comes up every once and a while here, and it seems rather fruitless arguing about it. To me it seems that whether or not man has a real choice really becomes irrelevant. We can only live within the reality we know. It really seems an impossibility to me to live like we don’t have choices. Stephen Hawkings said that even a man who believes the future is predetermined will look both ways before crossing the street.
Also, for a better explanation of Romans, read The Problem With Evangelical Theology by Ben Witherington. Romans is anything but simple, and reading it without picking up cultural and textual clues leads to difficulties. It’s particularly tricky when the word “law” is used. I really don’t have the time or energy to get into it all right now.
I’m not saying Scripture is intentionally vague. I’m just saying we have to look at it in its original context to really get the meaning.
Right because WE don’t know the future, even if it were predestined. God does, but we make the choices still. He just knows what we’ll do, it’s still me making the choice. I just don’t see salvation as something man chooses, that’s all. I have free will, just not my eternal destiny. I agree Phil, these debates go downhill really quickly and no one ever budges because we’re all stubborn and we’re not God and don’t know everything (whooo run-on!).
I’ll take what Rick has said and pray and study about it more, I’m honest enough to know that I can definitely be wrong. So I have to check! The question is, is everyone else? Even on something as big as this?? Let’s examine ourselves to see if we’re being humble and contrite, and that we’re not holding on to ‘pet doctrines’ (I’ve heard this term used before, I like it). Thanks guys!
Love,
Joe
if we can seek God (not dead in our sins) on our own why would we need the Holy Spirit to work in us? why can no one come to God without the Holy Spirit? whats so special about the holy spirit in our redemption? the holy spirit is the one who regenerates us. john 3 says that we must be born again implying that we are dead in our sins to begin with, unable to seek God THE WAY HE WANTS US TO. yes, fallen men have a concept of god but it isnt complete neither is it accurate. it is made manifest in them worshiping idols and making god in their own image. Realizing the existence of God isnt the same as knowing God in truth. God requires that we know him and hence obey him. they have a vague idea but it isnt made perfect until the holy spirit impresses the truth of the scripture on the minds of sinful men about the nature of God and what He has done for us through Christ and thus regenerates them.
the doctrine of total depravity which both calvinists and arminians subscribe to states that
“Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto”
Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition.
[source: wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity
And because we cannot save ourselves God saves us.
Also, our ability or inability to seek God has nothing to do with God condemning us. We are condemned because we have sinned against God. and we sin because our very nature is sinful. and this sinful nature exists because we all fell with adam. as per Gods holy law we are justly condemned.
Abe, not everyone subscribes to total depravity as Calvin taught. I believe that if you agree with Calvin’s total depravity then you must agree with the rest of tulip. A Calvinists brand of total depravity is different than an arminian brand, based on the subscription to Calvin.
Lance,
No. I didn’t say Love and sovereignty are opposed, etc.
I’m saying that sovereignty is about the economy of God’s action, it describes the absolute efficacy of God’s action…but it is not the defining characteristic of God’s being as elucidated through the doctrine of the Trinity. I’m arguing that the weight of Scripture, the texts and the narrative arc, combined with Christian explication of doctrine reveals a God whose ultimate essence is love.
Even Augustine–whom Calvin is completely dependent on–understood this.
To be clear…this is not some smarmy, cloying, sentimentalized notion of love…
My point is this:
If “sovereignty” (i.e. control) is the defining characteristic of God then the absolute value of the created order is found in “power” and not “charity” which is the being of God.
That is my claim.
I stand by it.
In love…of course.
hope that helps you understand what I’m saying.
abe,
It’s not really correct to say that Arminians believe in total depravity, at least in the sense that Calvinists mean it. Here’s a site that describes the differences between the five points. The interesting thing to me is that the five points of TULIP were actually in response to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrants.
The way many Calvinists describe the debate makes it sound as if Calvinism is historic Christianity. Also, it’s interesting that Calvinism as we know it today is probably taken to much more of an extreme than Calvin would have envisioned.
Hello Joe,
Yeah my mass-murderer analogy is little bit wrong.
The mass murderer did NOT appeal for pardon. The pardon was given freely without asking. Sorry about that. I think i better use a scriptural example.
[matthew 27] 15Now it was thegovernor’s custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. 17So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him.
19While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”
20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
21″Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.
“Barabbas,” they answered.
22″What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”
23″Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
in the same way, the festival would release a person already condemned to death/etc but the person had no right to ask for it and the release of e.g. Barabbas did not require Barabbas to ask for anything.
Notice that it was the governor’s custom. Although the citizens were the ones who asked, the governer could release or refuse as he sees fit. The ’sovereignty’ of release lies solely at the hands of the governor, who acts accordng to his own benefit.
Nc,
Thanks for clarifying.
[I’m arguing that the weight of Scripture, the texts and the narrative arc, combined with Christian explication of doctrine reveals a God whose ultimate essence is love.]
Amen. However, does God love himself more or humans more than God? God cannot love humans more than Himself because doing so will be idolatry of worthless man. God loves himself utmost, but he can also love humans beings at the same time provided they do not clash.
When the humans beings here in question prostituite God’s love for idolatry, then God would guard his interests first and execute his righteous punishment.
Phil,
I agree that we should focus on reality. However, because understanding of this theology profoundly affects how we approach key aspects of reality, its best to get it clear, whether you believe in TULIP or not. While i believe in what i believe, you must be convinced in your own mind. Choose the best course.
When stephen hawkings crosses the road, if he beleives in a predestined future and assumes he will live tmr, then i suppose he won’t look at the roads both ways. (i.e. in this section stephen has the wrong concept)
When stephen instead has the concept that his future is predestined but he will never know, he will look both left and right. But even if he gets hit by a car, he thanks god knowing that it was a good plan.
Rick,
allow me to refute some of your proof texts.
Lk.13:24-27 – Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
24Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
25When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
26Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
27But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
- -Refer to verse 24 and 25 again. It says
24″Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.
Was it because they did not go through the narrow door? Nope they tried but were rejected because whether they can go through a narrow door does not depend on their choice, hence the qualifier ‘ will not be able to’.
[Lk.17:32-34 - 33Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.]
If read in the context, it says beforehand (luke17)
[ 28"It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. ]
Did they reach God? No. God selected Lot alone. The sodomites were blind to the end. None of them seeked God.
One more thing. Your verses should be 32-33. 34 reads this (NIV) 34I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”
It tells us that while both women will be grinding grain, only one will be chosen to be left alive upon coming of the kingdom of God. This shows us that salvation is not dependent on how man tries (as if he can even try), but on God’s sovereign choice, which i know many do choke on this point.
[Jn.6:25-27 - 25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.]
Refer to your verse 27. “which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed” i.e. (NIV) 27Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
The key assumption i believe you seem to be making is that we somehow work for our places in heaven. i.e. the ‘bread’ that the Son of Man gives (v27) is somehow a wage for work?
But if you look closely, what is this work that earns this bread?
28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
hence this does not back up the (rick’s) claim that believers were made and not chosen. It simply tells us what happens AFTER a person believes.
k. 2cents done and back to work.
Lance,
The thing is this: we could go back and forth forever throwing up specific verses to support God’s sovereignty or man’s free will. It doesn’t accomplish much. I think the problem arise from our attempt to fit the Bible into our systematic theologies rather than vice versa.
Personally, I guess I would probably be called an Open Theist, but I think I was one even before I ever heard of the term. I think there are things that God absolutely predestines, but I think there are things in the future that are open as possibilities still. Basically, I don’t believe God operates from a script. He is living and active, and for those two things to be true implies a level of interaction that I believe is hard to imagine under a view of divine foreknowledge that says everything is planned.
lance,
Nope, it was because they “tried” to enter the narrow gate by works and not faith… that is what Paul states in Romans 9.
This is the issue with both views both seem to negate that the Holy Spirit is now poured out on all flesh according to Acts chapter 2…
Again, man has a free will and since God has poured out the Holy Spirit on all flesh, man can now respond to the calling of the Father and draw near to Jesus… the issue now is whether it is by works or faith…
It is only because the Holy Spirit is now poured out on all men that man can freely choose. Works or faith… Our own righteousness which we have none or Jesus’ righteousness… our own holiness or Jesus’… Grace by the Holy Spirit or Works by flesh. CHoosing the covenant of death and condemnation or the covenant of Life through Jesus.
Jesus is the door in which men enter by faith… and many will try to enter by works and not faith.
Be blessed,
iggy
Lance,
I don’t know if we can rightly say things about “who God loves more”? Considering that Love is what God is…not merely a verb merely revealing what God does or how God does it.
I don’t know if we can apply categories of evaluation to God that apply to humans…i.e. “idolatry of worthless humans”. God is constrained by God’s being. So I don’t think we can rightly compare God’s mysterious loving of God’s self in the Trinity to God’s loving of humans and place a value on one over the other.
Just my opinion…that’s correct, of course….(just kidding)
In the Trinity we see a God who is a self-donating, mutually addressing relationship. The outward impulse toward self-donation could be the filter through which we understand God’s loving of humans and God’s pursuit of God’s interests.
Considering the essence of God as Trinity, we could just as easily say it is in God’s highest interest to love all God encounters. Why? To fail in love is to fail at the level of divine being…an impossibility. God can’t be anything other than what God is-love. The Trinity helps us see the love that God is always gives, reaches for the other, mutually indwells, etc. etc. etc.