What is the ground of one's duty?

What is the ground of one's duty and responsibility?

One's responsibility and duty is determined and defined
by covenant obligations.
It is that basic.

Sing F Lau
Nearly all insist that God commands, and it is the duty of all men without distinction to believe Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. May I inquire, what is the ground of that duty?
They also argue that disability does not negate their duty - as though that is an issue. So what is the issue? May 05, 9.40pm

Sing F Lau
Would God require or hold a man responsible - whom He did not give Jesus Christ to be his Saviour, and for whom Jesus did not die to save - to believe in Jesus Christ?

Do you actually believe in such a schizophrenic god? To believe so is to impinge upon the moral character of God. He is not unjust as to require a man to believe that which is not true of him - to believe that he is redeemed when no redemption was provided for him. Wicked men require others to believe lies. Not the God of truth who has redeemed His people.

And it is not about ability. They miss the whole point!

It is about covenant obligations. One's responsibility and duty is determined and defined by covenant obligations. It is that basic.

The covenant of creation imposes certain definite obligations upon man as creatures of God. These obligations extend NO FURTHER than those embraced in the covenant of creation.

The covenant of redemption imposes certain obligations upon children of God (regenerated elect), and they are under obligation to believe the truth of their redemption by God's free grace. These obligations extend NO FURTHER than those embraced in the covenant of redemption.

The ground of of a man's duty and obligation are the covenant obligation.

Inability does not negate duty at all.
But redemptive grace provides the spiritual life for spiritual activities.

Ellis
The question is, does God require men that are not elect to repent and believe that Jesus is their Saviour? He is not their Saviour. But some say that the command is given to leave them men without excuse.

Sing F Lau
They are ALREADY without excuse enough from the general revelation in the covenant obligation as creatures of God's creation. There is NO NEED to make them more without excuse!!!

The non elect has PERFECT excuse not to believe in the divine court of law! They could charge God of requiring them to believe a lie - and that is not a small matter! Their condemnation will never be based upon their rejection of Jesus Christ. 

Ellis
Amen

Harrison
These are very interesting thoughts, Brother Sing. I have never thought about these things from this particular aspect/angle before. Thanks for sharing this!

Ellis
It comes from his deep sea diving experience in the South seas. :-)

Harrison
LOL! Well, to add in my two cents (you brethren please correct me if I am wrong) but as simply as I can think about this is in terms of what Jesus said:

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." - John 10:26

It does not say that they believed not because they chose to reject Jesus Christ as their Savior. It says they believed not because they were not "of my sheep". That is a possessive prepositional phrase. They didn't believe because they did not BELONG to Jesus Christ or God the Father.

So, might I conclude that "believing not" and "rejecting Jesus Christ" is a RESULT/EFFECT of not being a child of God (and thus being left in your sins) and not the CAUSE of it??

I think it is simply understanding and applying the basic law of cause and effect.

Morrow
Brother Keith, you said: "The question is, does God require men that are not elect to repent and believe that Jesus is their Saviour? He is not their Saviour. But some say that the command is given to leave them men without excuse."
I don't think that is the question at all. The question is, "Does God have the right to command men to do something that He knows they neither can nor are disposed to do?" Jesus Christ is not only Savior, He is Lord. One day ...Every knee will bow....Every Tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Do we agree that all men everywhere ..should...should....should acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord? Christ is Savior only on the basis of His Lordship. Men who sincerely acknowledge Him as Lord show the evidence of the secret work of regeneration in their hearts because without that work of the Spirit they could not, nor would not bow before Him. And even though they can't and will not...should all men and devils and every other creature not bow before Christ as Lord?

Ellis
Sorry , I do not buy into Lordship salvation.

Sing F Lau
Dr Morrow, Lordship CANNOT be separated from the Saviorhood of Christ. He is Lord because He is the Messianic King - "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name o...f the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

And He is Messiah of His own, those given to Him by the Father to redeem. And that is the SPECIFIC and PARTICULAR context of the great commission.

Thomas
Perhaps the question is: Why would someone portray God as being so irrational as to demand belief from those that He knows cannot believe?

Walters ‎
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36

Notice the verse does not say they are condemned because they did not believe, but that the wrath of God abides on those who do not believe. It's not because of this unbelief that they are condemned!

Morrow
OK Brother Keith...do you buy into non-lordship salvation?

Ellis
Salvation by grace plus nothing.

Davis
What status did the High Priest have, as it would relate to "Lordship." Is intervention with the Father (by the High Priest), and intervention for our "groaning" by Jesus, to God, parallel. If so, and that is Lordship, I'm not concerned about the term. Yet, if Lordship means we are to please our master by good works (including "stop sinning"), then I agree with Elder Keith Ellis. Yes, salvation comes only by "accepted" grace. Faith is a "nothing" kind of work.See More

Thomas
"nothing" kind of work." Ac 17:30 "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:"

Morrow
Mark, Why would someone portray God as being so irrational as to demand conformity to His Law from those that he knows cannot keep it? And yet that is what He did to Israel. You need to quit worrying about rationality or irrationality and just believe the Bible. As far as Lordship salvation is concerned I understand that to mean that the Holy Spirit brings men...through regeneration...to a point of sincerely and honestly bowing before Jesus Christ as Lord. If supposed regeneration doesn't do that it is shown to be not the real thing.See More

Thomas
Sorrow on Morrow, I will not portray the Godhead as irrational. You go ahead on.

Sing F Lau
What is really irrational and nonsensical to me is this:
- that God requires EVEN those whom He DID NOT give Christ to be their Redeemer and for whom Christ did not die... that God requires such to believe in Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
I am trying to get pass such notion!

Morrow
Very slick way of avoiding the question Mark. Intellectual honesty and straight forward answers...that's what I like. Thanks my friend.

Morrow
I've got it! I understand...Now I know...wow..I am so slow. You guys subject God to YOUR rationality and anything in the Bible that seems irrational to you ...you reject. Got it! Thanks...it finally came through.

Walters
Mr. Morrow, do you believe that anyone can stop God from having mercy on a person?

Sing F Lau
Morrow, I've finally got it too! I understand...Now I know...wow..I am so slow. You subject God to YOUR own fancy, and anything in the Bible that that appears to suit your fancy must be the way God works - even though your fancy impinges upon God's character - makes God's a schizophrenic.
Got it! Thanks...it finally came through!

Morrow
Mr Walters...no.

Morrow
Well Sing...at least we understand each other... Good night.

Sing F Lau
I am off to the capital city for church planting work... won't be around for a day or two. Sleep well.

Davis
‎@ Mr. Lau. Please don't consider my question a start for devisive argument, as it's purpose is to understand beliefs that I cannot comprehend, so the answer would help in that regard. If the elect were predestined by God for eternal life with Him, and individual A is the human life-form in question as to election, and individual A is not, what reason is there to speak to either? And, for that matter, what reason do we have to believe in God, ourselves? I'll not counter your response, but to me, if God is no "respecter of persons," and each person has an eternal soul, that seems counter-intuitive to the definition of "election".

Sing F Lau
The only way an argument ought to be divisive is that it DIVIDES errors from truth... and it ought to do that every time.

I always entertain honest questions, and even rhetorical questions. That does mean my answers to those questions are necessarily correct. The honor to correct wrong answers belongs to the inquirers if they knows the answers!

So, what's your questions?

I don't understand your first question - "If the elect were predestined by God for eternal life with Him, and individual A is the human life-form in question as to election, and individual A is not, what reason is there to speak to either?"

What is meant be ".. A is..." and "... A is not"? Kindly rephrase your question. If someone else know what you are asking, please help explain what the question is. Thanks.

Sing F Lau
‎Davis @ "And, for that matter, what reason do we have to believe in God, ourselves?"

A great deal... Do you see none? Then tell us why there is no reason for you to believe God. I would be glad to hear.

Davis
Basically, I am asking why entertain scriptures that speak of teachers, preachers, who are presenting the Word of God in voice, to Person A (if that person has been predestined as the elect), and to Person B (if that person has not), when w...e don't know the status of the individuals. Or more simply, what's the use of doing anything. I believe the Bible is from God and inerrant, so I believe in predestination and election, but I cannot reconcile what I think to be some interpretations with other scripture and well, logic.

I am certain that I do not have the full understanding of the belief, rather than it being "in error."

Sing F Lau
Johnny, I think I understand your question now. That's a common question. Dr Morrow asked it many times too!

The knowledge of who are elect and who are not among our hearers is IRRELEVANT to what I have been saying.

The gospel is to be preached publicly, thus all are addressed indiscriminately. That's the nature of the public proclamation. HOWEVER, a preacher like Apostle Paul know full well that his ministry is relevant and intended for God's children only, that the gospel call is addressed at God's children among the hearers... for only such will hear and believe. To all others the gospel will be perceived a foolishness.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

The gospel ministry has NO RELEVANT to the non elect... and that is still 100% true even through the preacher is 100% ignorant of who are the elect or the non-elect among his hearers. He presses on in his preaching ministry KNOWING FULL WELL that there are God's children scattered around the world that needed to be gathered into churches.

The knowledge or who are elect and who are not is IRRELEVANT to the fact that the gospel ministry is RELEVANT only to the children of God.

And the preaching of the gospel is the converting of God's children and gathering them into NT churches before their glorification at the appointed time.

So the gospel ministry is VERY IMPORTANT - but only for the purpose it was DIVINELY ordained!

Davis
Would it be correct if the hearts of the hearers, prior to the hearing (or reading of the Word), must be from God, for them to convicted of sin, or is it necessary to teach all hearts possible, to determine whether they are of God. It seems... that teaching is to find the saved, rather than seeking the lost. Or, is seeking the lost a wrong concept. Again, not to argue, as true believers are included in the kingdom, as we both can agree. To say otherwise, would seem to diminish the need for Christ in the first place.

Sing F Lau
Johnny, this is what I believe.
The gospel comes to God's children, i.e. it come to those whom God has regenerated. They are already quickened from that state of sin and death.

God makes His own children, without man's help.
God appoints the gospel ministry to bring His children to the gospel truth.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to teach those still dead in trespasses and sins. The gospel is simply foolishness to them, they are in the state of enmity and rebellion against God.

God through Christ sought the lost... lost because separated from Him by sin. The gospel ministry is appointed to make disciples of those who God has saved by His free grace.

'The lost' presupposes an owner. Something is lost because someone own it. And something is lost because it is separated from the owner who owns it.

Christ Himself came to seek the lost... His sheep that was given Him by the Father. They were lost - separated from the Father because of sin. Christ's work alone sought the lost and reconciled them to God. They are brought to God by the finished work of Jesus Christ APPLIED to each of them individually.

The gospel ministry is to FEED the sheep... to make disciples of God's children. Disciples can only be made up of the living, i.e. God's children.

God sought the lost, and the gospel ministry feed the sheep that are found by God's free grace.

Davis
Thanks for the clarification. Don't find anything I disagree with, again, based on language and interpretation. I'll expand later, if you wish, but please allow me to by "comment" before I do. In Him. Besides, got to hop in the car for worship.

Sing F Lau
May our Lord bless you with a blessed time of worship and fellowship. I have returned from our evening service! I preached "... BUT David encouraged himself in the LORD his God" 1Sam 30:6
Sunday at 10:44pm ·

Davis
Ok, back, with time to think. I suspect many will consider this comment a philosophy, because it doesn't downright agree, or disagree with your doctrine. With that caveat, I agree with your statements that "hearers..irrelevant" in that it is the same concept that mission-oriented churches, without concept of election behind them, teach: that is, they do not know the hearts of the hearers, those convicted and accept grace are the elect (in that God foreknew or had the ability to foreknow) those hearts (as David, a man after God's own heart), and the same with the hardened heart. "The gospel ministry has NO RELEVANT" to the non elect", same explanation. If one groups teaches the gospel (the "good news" of Christ being God's grace for forgiveness, i.e. never having known, of sins by Christ's physical and spiritual acceptance of the consequence of those sins), to sinners accepting the grace, or individuals elect or not elect, accepting the grace, seems all the same to me. The righteousness resulting is the same, as the elect will or have been God's Kingdom, church, Bride of Christ, Saved from Eternity with God and Christ and from the lake of fire reserved for the devil and his angels. Foreknowledge and Election are true, biblical concepts, just as "God created." I have been guilty of spreading division among Christians by attacking truth, with my pre-conceived notions that seem to conflict other beliefs. That sin has been forgiven, and now, I try to understanding other's background and how their belief-structure came about. For example, I could worship with, be in communion with (if allowed, I suppose), have fellowship with, and go to heaven with, those who approach Election and knowledge of one's electoin/salvatoin as I think you do. However, it would be sin for me to question the faithfulness of any Christian for their beliefs, unless of course, they are in direct acceptance of sinfulness (the Church of the Devil, for example). That's just me, and I would not impose that belief on anyone. Everyone takes a defense attitude when said they are said to be wrong, based on an idea or tradition which may be imperfect itself, since ages ago.

Sing F Lau
Thanks Johnny. I guess what is of utmost important is that one's belief has to be consistent, and does not injurious implications that impinge upon the moral character of God, or deny the free and gracious nature of eternal salvation, etc.

Every belief has its implications. If these implications are inconsistent with or contradictory to any part of Scriptures, then the belief probably erroneous, and ought to be rejected.

It is not a matter of imposing anything on any one. It is a matter of getting one another to see the consistencies and contradictory nature of certain beliefs. But if people are happy and content with such, then life move on.

It is not even a matter of faithfulness... That is an issue that the Master Himself must deal with. But rightly dividing the word of truth is something that a man must be held accountable.

Davis

Yes, completely agreed. I was from a religious background that emphasized the supposed error in other's beliefs to hold the view that the correct belief (whatever our human mind can come to know) must be the only belief accepted for fellows...hip and worship. This is on the basis that the beliefs are in error, sometimes in very small ways (I'll not give examples, as it may cause divisions, and we are to be of one mind - that is, of Christ). And, yes, this idea of the "true" church that is not denominational or Catholic, based wholly on scripture, stated that membership in that church, and proper "steps" to salvation, were required for heaven. Now, my group has moderated, or rather, passed the buck, to their belief in Christians being only of their group to the exclusion of others, by statements like, "God will be the judge." In God's eye, I wonder if the divisions among Christians universal, are not significant (except those you mentioned that are contrary to the God's character). The question then, is where to draw the line: must we believe the same things that are in character with God, or are we allowed diversity, for lack of another term?

Sing F Lau

Let me be absolutely clear about a few basic things so that there is no misunderstanding whatsoever.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing required of a man for his place in heaven. That is solely by the free and sovereign grace of God. God alone purposed eternal redemption for His people, Christ alone secured that redemption for His people, and the Spirit alone, WITHOUT man's assistance, applies that eternal redemption to each individual at God's appointed and accepted time. That is what is meant by salvation be free grace alone.

A man is SAVED by God's free grace SO THAT he is able to understand and believe the truth of his salvation by God's free grace. NO amount of understanding or ignorance can affect the eternal status of a man.

However, it is no license for a child of God to remain in ignorance. He is responsible to learn and to grow... and he has been given all the means necessary to that end. His WELL-BEING and USEFULNESS is intimately tied up with and proportionate to his knowledge of the truth of God as revealed in God's Scriptures.

God's children can and will differ in a wide degree of ways... and that's great shame and tragedy.

God is most honored when He is most accurately believed as He is revealed in the Scriptures, and honored and worshiped accordingly.