SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Is the problem "unwillingness" or "inability" ?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 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 Next Page )
PosterThread
Gloryandgrace
Member



Joined: 2017/7/14
Posts: 825
Snoqualmie, WA

 Re:


Hi Mak: Im going to ask for a day off, I have tonsilitis and i'm really run down today. Stayed home from work, your questions are excellent questions and deserve a good answer from me.

Maybe Savannah can answer.


_________________
Marvin

 2018/12/5 12:04Profile
savannah
Member



Joined: 2008/10/30
Posts: 1828


 Re: Is the problem "unwillingness" or "inability" ?



"Is the problem "unwillingness" or
"inability"?"

The problem is your presupposition!

You've titled your thread,

"Is the problem "unwillingness" or "inability"?"

It's not either the one, or the other!

With such a foundation,you're whole house is being built upon sand. And your contractor has no credentials nor does he have the blueprint.

You see, inability is the root, and unwillingness is the fruit.

The two are one. You cannot separate them.

That which is born of the flesh,i.e unwillingness and inability, is flesh or natural.

That which is born of the spirit, i.e willingness and ability, is spirit or supernatural.

If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation!

The flesh profited nothing toward that!





 2018/12/5 13:21Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 1947
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

Quote:
"Is the problem "unwillingness" or
"inability"?"

The problem is your presupposition!

You've titled your thread,

"Is the problem "unwillingness" or "inability"?"

It's not either the one, or the other!

With such a foundation,you're whole house is being built upon sand. And your contractor has no credentials nor does he have the blueprint.

You see, inability is the root, and unwillingness is the fruit.

The two are one. You cannot separate them.

That which is born of the flesh,i.e unwillingness and inability, is flesh or natural.

That which is born of the spirit, i.e willingness and ability, is spirit or supernatural.

If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation!

The flesh profited nothing toward that!


We’d argue it’s actually the other way around, i.e. the “inability” of which the Bible speaks in certain scriptures such as Romans 8:7-8 is the fruit of man’s unwillingness to turn to and trust God. To say that man’s unwillingness is the fruit of man’s inability when it comes to man’s rejection of Christ, is to put the cart before the horse imo. So we we'd encourage reconsidering and laying aside that type of presupposition imposed on Scripture, with all due respect.


_________________
Oracio

 2018/12/5 13:58Profile
makrothumia
Member



Joined: 2005/5/19
Posts: 577
Texas

 Re:

Dear Savannah,

Please try to understand that I am closer to your position than your realize. I fully agree a sinner is not able in himself or herself to respond to God without the initiative taken by God. In that sense, I agree that the sinner is "unable" to help themselves. God must begin the work, continue the work and complete the work.


So I can see your point that "unwillingness" is the fruit of "inability". That is an understanding I already had. Yet, there is a reason that I have put forth the matter for discussion that you seem to have missed, so please allow me to invite your consideration once again.


Given that it takes God's initiative to enable anyone to respond to Him, there are passages in scripture where it seems apparent He HAS TAKEN the initiative and IS ACTIVELY seeking to "convict", to "turn", to "correct" His own people, His elect, the people of Israel. In these passages, God Himself describes the response of the people as "unwilling" to hear, and "refusing" to be corrected.

I believe that brothers like yourself have thoughts about such passages, for I trust that you love and know the scriptures well. Since it is in these type of passages where God seems to be actively drawing, compelling, correcting His people, and He Himself describes their response as "unwilling" to hear - that I see the element of the "will of man" as involved and even a "dynamic" part of the result.

It is pointless to argue about what we already agree on. God is the initiator in redemption and salvation. Please carefully consider my offer to discuss the passages where God's initiative is abundantly clear. I have provided one such passage already, but I don't think you understood my reason for providing it.

I am honest that I see men "resisting", "refusing" grace and mercy that God is actively offering and bringing to them. You have read these same passages and perhaps at one time, that is how they appeared to you as well, or may still appear that way. Since, it is passages like these where we see a conflict between God's active attempt to turn His people away from their sins and back to Himself and a stubborn refusal on the part of those He is attempting to turn, the "will of man" is a decisive factor in the outcome.

Once again, I am offering the opportunity for you and other brothers to share your understanding on those type of passages. I am opening my heart and acknowledging that I see "man's will" as a key factor in such passages.

Please let me know if that is still unclear. I assume that you know exactly the type of passages that I am referring to. They proliferate the record of Kings, Chronicles, the major and minor prophets and are often summarized in the prayers of the Nehemiah, Ezra, Daniel, etc.

I also see in the prophets evidence of God's sovereign grace moving to gather a scattered people for His own name's sake. He gathers, He cleanses, He circumcises the heart, He puts His Spirit in them and moves them to fear Him and continue faithfully. I love that He is willing to do that for His own name sake and to maintain His promises to Abraham and to David.

I KNOW God can override men's will, for His own sake, and those who are affected have no causal affect at all. What about those who God is actively seeking to turn away from sin and to return them to Himself and He describes them as being "unwilling"?


Can you discuss those scenarios please?


mak






_________________
Alan and Dina Martin

 2018/12/5 14:21Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 1947
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

Ditto what Mak said, gotta learn from that gracious, temperate example.


_________________
Oracio

 2018/12/5 14:39Profile
savannah
Member



Joined: 2008/10/30
Posts: 1828


 Re: ditto



Oracio said,

"Ditto what Mak said, gotta learn..."

Mak said,

"So I can see your point that "unwillingness" is the fruit of "inability". That is an understanding I already had."


So Oracio, am I to understand that you have been corrected and are now turning from your error which you just posted;

"We’d argue it’s actually the other way around, i.e. the “inability” of which the Bible speaks in certain scriptures such as Romans 8:7-8 is the fruit of man’s unwillingness to turn to and trust God. To say that man’s unwillingness is the fruit of man’s inability when it comes to man’s rejection of Christ, is to put the cart before the horse imo. So we we'd encourage reconsidering and laying aside that type of presupposition imposed on Scripture, with all due respect."

Do you recant from the words you are quoted writing above?

Or maybe you missed that part of Mak's post.


 2018/12/5 15:14Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 1947
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

Hi Marvin, you wrote:

Quote:
As to Roger Olson, he sounds well rounded until you dive deeper into his open-theism which I find heretical and abhorrent. As long as a few quotes from someone who bolsters your position is quoted...he must be right-on. I have commented numerous times on Roger Olson's site and I found his perversions of God's attributes nothing short of heresy. I told him so in no uncertain terms, which were shortly purged from the comment section.

Charles finney's abhorrent pelagianism is anathametized by the orthodox everywhere, but as long as he can bolster another position he is all good too. Have I read Finney? I've read through his systematic theology when I was an admirer of him and another 8 other books written by him, edited by Parkhurst. I know what he believes.


I used to think similarly in terms of dividing from and anathametizing certain Christians who did not adhere to "orthodoxy" as I understood it or as it is commonly thought of within much of "mainline" Protestantism or Evangelicalism. But I realized that much of the time it is those who "win" certain battles in history, and who outnumber others, who get to define what is or isn't acceptable or tolerable.

Regarding Roger Olson being an open theist, that is simply untrue and here's an article that proves it:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/08/why-i-am-not-an-open-theist/

But there are some well-known Arminians, such as Greg Boyd, who do believe in open theism, and I don’t believe it’s a reason to “cast them out of the kingdom.”

Towards Finney’s theology, particularly his “moral governmental” view of the atonement, I realize there are several Atonement theories within Christendom. While I personally hold to the Penal Substitution view, I do see other views as being acceptable within Christianity and I would not completely discard them but would see them as also being at least in part biblical and complimentary (e.g. the Christus Victor/Ransom theory-which seems to have been a dominant view among early church leaders, and the Moral Government theory-Jonathan Edwards seems to have held to both the Penal Substitution and Moral Government views of it based on some of his writings).

When it comes to the Atonement, one thing we all agree on is that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. We also all agree with the Apostle’s Creed as it is a statement that declares explicit Scriptural teaching. Of course, there are other “essentials” explicitly taught in Scripture which are also of upmost importance.

Sometimes I’ve asked myself the question, “What exactly is Essential Christian Doctrine and how is it determined?” Maybe I or someone else should start a thread on that topic. Hmmm.


_________________
Oracio

 2018/12/5 15:21Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 1947
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

Hi savannah, you wrote:

Quote:
Oracio said,

"Ditto what Mak said, gotta learn..."

Mak said,

"So I can see your point that "unwillingness" is the fruit of "inability". That is an understanding I already had."


So Oracio, am I to understand that you have been corrected and are now turning from your error which you just posted;

"We’d argue it’s actually the other way around, i.e. the “inability” of which the Bible speaks in certain scriptures such as Romans 8:7-8 is the fruit of man’s unwillingness to turn to and trust God. To say that man’s unwillingness is the fruit of man’s inability when it comes to man’s rejection of Christ, is to put the cart before the horse imo. So we we'd encourage reconsidering and laying aside that type of presupposition imposed on Scripture, with all due respect."

Do you recant from the words you are quoted writing above?

Or maybe you missed that part of Mak's post.



Yeah, I thought there may be a misunderstanding on that. No, I don’t recant anything I said there because I believe it is reconcilable with what Mak wrote. I’ll try to explain.

Scripture is clear that after God blessed man with life and all good things, man chose to rebel against and depart from God; man initiated breaking fellowship with God, he was first “unwilling” in that sense. As a result of that “unwillingness,” he became “unable” to perfectly obey God’s moral law; he became sinful or morally depraved; yet God still allowed man to maintain a certain level of freedom of will.

Ever since the fall, God has always initiated salvation, and apart from God’s initiative man cannot and will not be saved. However, once man rejects God's revelation of Himself and His offer of salvation, man becomes more hardened/calloused and "unable" in his evil ways. That “inability” is both “volitional” and “natural” (natural in the sense of there being a bent toward sin), but the volitional aspect came first and is the decisive factor, not God. The “inability” is a sort of judgment from God in that He withdraws His enabling grace from sinners and allows them to become hardened in their sins on account of them first choosing to rebel against Him and on account of their refusal of His mercy and grace. Hope that helps.



_________________
Oracio

 2018/12/5 15:48Profile
Gloryandgrace
Member



Joined: 2017/7/14
Posts: 825
Snoqualmie, WA

 Re:


Hi Oracio: Thank you for the article. I reviewed it.

But there are more articles to consider, I responded to numerous of these as they came out in 2010.

Here's a quote from Roger Olson that I totally disagree with.
"Many evangelical “scholars” and leaders have simply lumped people like me, who defend open theism as a legitimate evangelical option, into the same camp with the open theists–as dangerous subversives of the evangelical faith. That’s fine; I’ll stand with my open theist friends in that camp over against the neo-fundamentalists who seem to be largely controlling the evangelical establishment today. I have higher hopes for the future of the evangelical academy and there are hopeful signs (e.g., the new direction Baker publishers is taking). But I know that many evangelical college and university and seminary administrators are so under the spell of the neo-fundamentalists’ fear factory that they are reluctant or totally unwilling even to consider hiring an open theist.

To me, open theism, though mistaken, is much to be preferred over five point Calvinism, with its belief that Christ died only for the elect."

Open theism to me is not 'misunderstood, or actually misrepresented'. I understand open theism because I have read the articles favoring it, I have debated dozens of open theists and those attending seminary where they were being taught open theism and were fresh with ideas from the professors. I conversed with Roger Olson directly on the subject and he like others who have a disdain for Calvinism regard Calvinistic rebukes and warning of heresy with little regard.

I would in fact throw on open-theist out of the pulpit in milliseconds upon approving it.
His logic of accepting Molinism which I cannot stand either is just 'another perspective' to him. He has little sensitivity to error in my opinion.

What Roger does is issue out 'double-speak'. I like many approve and regard my Arminian brothers as true brothers in the faith, yet I regard arminianism as errant. Roger goes farther, he regard the doctrine as orthodox too, which I cannot stomach. Roger does not 'believe it' but yet, makes room for it in the pulpit and classroom. That is compromise, doublespeak or just plain duplicity; either way technically he may not be an open theist but he is happy to share the pulpit, classroom and congregations with open theists.


_________________
Marvin

 2018/12/6 11:49Profile
UntoBabes
Member



Joined: 2010/8/24
Posts: 1031
Oregon

 Re:


Brother mak,
My advise to you is to go grab yourself a Snickers, cuz you may be waiting a while for the answers😉






_________________
Fifi

 2018/12/6 12:32Profile





©2002-2018 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy