 |
| Responsibility and Inability |
Ricky
"... Some years ago I had opportunity to preach among the Absoluter's (so-called) near us over in the western part of the state. I had known them for many years and still I
preach many funerals for them and see them often; few have even left. This particular day a brother had preached in
the morning and preached a really good message until he got almost finished and
injected some rather extreme views along the line that this article
mentions. That after noon to my surprise
they arranged for me to preach. I preached along the same line as the brother
that had preached that morning. The
Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility (accountability) of the individual.
What I would preach in any of the churches I pastor. I said during the course of my preaching
"that my inability had never made void my responsibility". I still
believe that. The late Elder W.D. Griffin who at one time was editor
of the Signs of the Times was present.
He was a native of Fayette Alabama, and a great preacher by the way,
said this after I had finished what I had to say: "brother Ricky I believe
what you have preached and most of our people do. Please don't throw us all away for what a
precious few inject from time to time". As careful as I think we have to
be sometimes, Let us not become an "offender for a word". Or take the
position that all are guilty because of their associations. I think it is not necessary to compromise on
fundamentals. In my estimation we cannot afford such a course but I heard Elder
Leland Swanner of Jonesboro Louisiana Say one time and I think of it often
" Let's not stand so straight that we fall backwards".
sing
Dear brother Ricky,
Your thoughts above
have stir this little mind a little.
I used to be greatly
perplexed because there is obvious and irreconcilable contradiction concerning
the teaching on the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of men - as it is
represented and taught by the 'reformed' brethren (some would not own them
brethren... but that's another topic.
This is because the
reformed folks understand the 'responsibility of men' in the context of dead
alien sinners. When I begin to understand that the 'responsibility of men' can
only refers to God's children, then the sovereignty of God and responsibility
of men make perfect sense and are in perfect harmony.
Spiritual
responsibility can only be expected of God's children. I think it irrational to
expect spiritual duties of natural men dead in sin. Moral responsibilities is
rightly and justly expected of all moral creatures made in the image of God. So
when people talk about 'responsibility of men, what do they have in mind -
moral responsibilities of spiritual responsibilities? I believe in the context
of the 'sovereignty of God and responsibility of men' they meant the latter.
A moral creature of
God is never free from the moral laws of the moral government of God over all
His creatures. But I can hardly believe that would hold a man dead in
trespasses and sins to fulfill any spiritual responsibility, e.g. believing the
gospel, trusting Jesus as Saviour.
A venerable Elder
rightly said, "morality is not spirituality!" Many mistake or
confound the two - and end up having to believe 'blessed inconsistencies.'
A biblical distinction is the
essence of sound theology.
Moral responsibility
is true of every moral creature made in the image of God, whether elect or not.
Spiritual
responsibility is true with respect to
God's children only - because they have be enabled. God works in them to will
and to do... and they are responsible to will and to do... If they don't
fulfill their responsibility as God's children, they shall most certainly be
whacked by the responsible Father!!!
I once said to a
'reformed' brother,
------------
"Spiritual responsibility can only be
expected of spiritual beings. I think it irrational to expect spiritual duties
of natural men dead in sin. Moral responsibilities is rightly and justly
expected of all moral creatures made in the image of God. So what are you about
- moral responsibilities of spiritual responsibilities?
"Problems? I believe they are just your
imagined problems because you fail to rightly divide the word of truth. Is any
man, a moral creature of God, ever free from the moral laws of the moral
government of God over all His creatures?
"Someone rightly said, morality is not
spirituality! Don't mistake or confound the two. A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.
Moral responsibility is true of every moral
creature of God, whether elect or not.
Spiritual responsibility is true with
respect to God's children ONLY..
"Think about
this: would God requires a sinner - dead in sins and trespasses, whom Christ
did not die for, the Spirit did not regenerate - to believe that God loves him
and Jesus Christ did die to save him? Would God require any moral creature to
believe a LIE? Who is mad? Let God be true and every man a LIAR, a prophet of
madness that bears false witness against God. That's the way I see it."
"Moral responsibility
is demanded of moral creatures.
Sinners has no
warrant to remain in sin.
Spiritual
responsibility is expected of spiritual creatures.
Distinction is the
essence of sound theology."
There are others...
but the above will suffice.
I affirm the moral
responsibility of man. His SPIRITUAL inability does not absolve him of his
moral responsibility. His moral responsibility is NOT conditioned upon his
moral ability or inability. His moral responsibility is based upon the covenant
obligation of a moral creature, made in the image of God, to his Creator.
I also affirm
repeatedly that "The gospel is relevant only to those whom God has given
spiritual life."
But you most
certainly NOT ONLY dispute and reject this without any proof, BUT ALSO confuse
it as a nullification of sinner's moral responsibility to repent and obey God.
Whatever has happen to intelligent discussion??? It is like Walter's basic
confusion of believer's faith and Christ's righteousness in the matter of
justification!
You asked kindly:
"So what say you, sing? Is it
because of mans sin that he is condemned or God's election?"
I have written, and
repeat it here to answer your misguided and unnecessary rhetorical question:
"Every man is
active enough in his rebellion against His Creator... he is more than
responsible enough to be damned a thousand times for his sins."
Sinner's moral
inability DOES NOT absolve his moral responsibility to obey and repent towards God -
not one iota. He may be absolved of his responsibility if he was turned into a
amoral beast. If your question is not answered, please let me know. I will
answer more plainly. But I don't know whether that would help... because even
plainest points don't seem to register with you.
GET OUT of the little box
and you may hear and register better, and we may have a more profitable
discussion.
I repeat, just in
case it did not register with you.
"Someone
rightly said, morality is not spirituality!"
Don't mistake or
confound the two.
A biblical distinction is the
essence of sound theology.
Moral responsibility
is true of every moral creature of God, whether God's children or not.
Spiritual
responsibility is true with respect to
God's children."
Please be exact
which part you want to dispute or deny.
I venture a guess:
you want to affirm the SPIRITUAL duty of all NATURAL man to believe in Jesus
Christ as their Saviour. [I.e. God requires some men to believe lies!]
I affirm this: it is
the moral responsibility of all natural man to repent and obey God.
I further affirm: it
is the spiritual responsibility of God's children to believe the truth of their
salvation.
I also affirm that
God does not expect any moral man to believe that which is a LIE! Thanks for reading.
May our Lord grant you some understanding of the things said.
==============
sandy thoughts of
a Chinese lad in the
south seas filled with hard cockle shells
sing
Rick
Bro Sing, I came in at lunch
and saw your writing. I am sorry that I
upset you. I was replying to Gene's post
that I enjoyed so much and injected an experience I had many ears a go. The context in which I used this was when a
brother had preached that the individual was not responsible for actions he
did. IN other words the brother stripped
the child of God of responsibility because all things were in time and eternity
predestinated of God. I used the terms that my inability to pay a debt did
not destroy my responsibility to pay the debt. (I still believe that's the
truth) I did not apply that to the dead alien sinner or anything along that
line. I think brethren who know me
understand where I come from on this. I
apologize for my failure to communicate that to you or anyone else that is a
big failing of mine.
MGB, Ricky
Mark
Dear Brother Ricky, I don't think Bro.
Sing was upset by your post at all. I
think he is in perfect agreement with you.
I believe he shared with us a post where he had a discussion with a
reformed baptist who was of a different mind on the subject. Brother Sing appears to have done a very fine
job of presenting the same truths we hold in a very clear and convincing
manner. Perhaps he will tell us if the
reformed brother had any change in mind following the discussion. I remain,
Yours in Brotherly
Bonds, Mark
Ricky
Mark, for some reason I am
only getting a part of these messages.
Evidently there is a problem on this end where I am. Thank you sending me this but it even lacked
a few words toward the end. Good to hear
from you and Sorry for the misinterpretation.
sing
Brother Ricky, you upset
me??????????
Impossible! Not even
if you punch me in my face!
I think it is just
that we refer to different thing.
I hope you didn't
have indigestion <grin>
Love a PB like you. sing
