# Sin and the Intellect



## nwink (Aug 9, 2013)

In what ways is the non-Christian's intellect affected by sin? What does this practically mean in terms of how one might engage in apologetics and evangelizing?


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 9, 2013)

I enjoyed the book The Noetic Effects of Sin by Stephen Moroney. It presents several models from Reformed theologians who have grappled with that questions. It also makes some novel contributions.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Aug 9, 2013)

!! that's a 100$ used book at amazon! 1200$ new!!


----------



## MW (Aug 9, 2013)

nwink said:


> In what ways is the non-Christian's intellect affected by sin? What does this practically mean in terms of how one might engage in apologetics and evangelizing?



Basically, the intellect is affected in every way, but primarily in that the thinking subject now makes himself the ultimate reference point. Hence all his so-called "facts" are nothing more than self-serving interpretations. Even if he reasons his way towards God it is such a God as will ultimately serve himself; his concepts and conclusions will always be carried by himself as the idolater carries about his idol to which he ascribes divine attributes.

Christianity is not merely a belief about God. It teaches that God became man in order to save His people from their sins. The fact of special revelation is inherent in the system and cannot be brought in as a second step of apologetics. The self-attesting God of Scripture must be the fundamental presupposition of Christian apologetics. The two-step method only serves to corrupt the unique nature of special revelation. Revelation is God revealing Himself to man, not man prising open the secrets of Deity.

For evangelism -- the command is to preach the Word. This will contain an apologetical element in it, but the gospel alone is the power of God unto salvation. The preacher should never be ashamed of it but boldly proclaim it with utmost dependence on the divine purpose of election. Every attempt to manipulate the process or to make the external call more effective in terms of inward persuasion only ends in strife.


----------



## jehough (Aug 9, 2013)

Al Mohler addressed this two years ago at the Ligonier National Conference. (Lot cheaper than $100 book)

Message 4, I've Got Half a Mind Too from The Christian Mind: 2012 National Conference Conference by Various Teachers from Ligonier Ministries


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 9, 2013)

Don't buy the book. Just go into a library and fill out an inter-library loan request. Usually for $1 they will find another library willing to ship it to you. Then you read it and return it.


----------



## Herald (Aug 9, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> For evangelism -- the command is to preach the Word. This will contain an apologetical element in it, but the gospel alone is the power of God unto salvation. The preacher should never be ashamed of it but boldly proclaim it with utmost dependence on the divine purpose of election. _*Every attempt to manipulate the process or to make the external call more effective in terms of inward persuasion only ends in strife.*_



Matthew, would you be kind enough to expand on your comment? 

Eschewing a Finneyistic approach, what is your opinion on the preacher making an appeal to repent and believe the gospel? When I preach the gospel I understand that it is only through divine election that an individual can come to faith in Christ. That said I have no qualms about calling on those within the sound of my voice to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. For me the line is crossed when it becomes less about the biblical command and more about the sales pitch. Having become a Christian in Pentecostal fundamentalism 34 years ago, how the gospel is preached is always in the forefront of my mind whenever I step into the pulpit.


----------



## MW (Aug 9, 2013)

Herald said:


> That said I have no qualms about calling on those within the sound of my voice to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.



That is necessary, and one should use every gift and grace bestowed by God to persuade others to believe; but this is external. Inward calling and persuasion is from the Holy Spirit blessing the means. He alone witnesses to the things we have of God in a personal and subjective way so that the sound of His testimony becomes one with our own spirits. There are those who try to imitate this inward persuasion and manipulate souls into faith and assurance. That is where problems arise. I am sure we have all seen or heard of a funeral in which the reward of the righteous is held out as the loving gift of God to all men without exception. As "liberal" as this evangelism claims to be, it lulls souls into a sleep of everlasting death.


----------



## Herald (Aug 9, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > That said I have no qualms about calling on those within the sound of my voice to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
> ...



Thank you, Matthew.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 10, 2013)

Nathan,
I think that topic is addressed well here - Owen Anderson : Beyond Plantinga and Improper Function: The Inexcusability of Unbelief - Quodlibet Journal


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2013)

Shawn Mathis said:


> !! that's a 100$ used book at amazon! 1200$ new!!



I can't help but draw the conclusion that the people who price books like that failed 8th grade economics.


----------



## sevenzedek (Aug 10, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> Shawn Mathis said:
> 
> 
> > !! that's a 100$ used book at amazon! 1200$ new!!
> ...



I have heard if scholarly books being over-priced for the laymen, but this seems over-priced even for the scholar. What do I know? I am the least of all armchair theologians.


----------



## sevenzedek (Aug 10, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > That said I have no qualms about calling on those within the sound of my voice to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
> ...



I was just reading Edwards' sermon this morning entitled "Pressing Into The Kingdom". In it, he has no shame in using the death of a loved one as an example of how all will one day perish and be without a hope of eternal life. In my social surroundings, I have rarely heard of anyone being so blunt in the presentation of the gospel. How many sermons have we ever heard where the preacher has said, "That could be you"?

The sinful mind of modern man is ill inclined to hear such a message. They would rather hear a flowery story about their loved ones in their moment of grief. They seek comfort in illusions. Come to think of it; I am also prone to such a disease.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 10, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> > Shawn Mathis said:
> ...



Right. I understand, if not entirely appreciate, Brill publishing being $150+. Others, however,


----------



## py3ak (Aug 10, 2013)

Academic publishers haven't yet realized that there is a body of Reformed people who will buy their books relating to Reformed things which would normally be purchased only by institutions, but only if they are reasonably priced. It's not a large body, but you could probably sell over three times as many copies of something like _Drawn Into Controversie_ if it were $29.99 instead of $92.00.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 10, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> Nathan,
> I think that topic is addressed well here - Owen Anderson : Beyond Plantinga and Improper Function: The Inexcusability of Unbelief - Quodlibet Journal



From the article:



> Guilt presupposes inexcusability: if a person can be excused then they are not guilty and do not need redemption.
> 
> Inexcusability presupposes ability: if a person is inexcusable in their failure to know God then they must have been able to know God.



Let me play with the second premise:



> Inexcusability presupposes ability: if a person is inexcusable in their failure to *keep the Law* then they must have been able to *keep the Law*.



In fact, is it not the case that "to know God" is part of the Law. How can this premise be rescued from the charge that it is Pelagian?

I'm not defending Plantinga's work per se but I am troubled by the assertion that "inexcusability presupposes ability".


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 10, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Nathan,
> ...



First, let us look at/analyze the original version. Let us assume that it is false; If one is not "able" then from where does blameworthiness and the related punishment come from? It basically becomes an unjust/unfair game/ploy. The key word is "able" and what one means by that term. To say that one is able to know God does not imply that one will ever do so without being regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit. What is implied is that it is irrational to not know God and not turn to him in repentance. The blame is able to be applied because the problem is not our reasoning faculties (We can have confidence that our bridges etc will not fall) but instead our hatred of God. Because we hate God, we will do whatever it takes to get away from him and bowing the knee before Him.

The normal scripture support that I have seen used is Romans 3 - 

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
----
I think such is a good defense against the charge of being Pelagian. If one seeks after God, then one will find God. If one does not seek after God, then one will not find God. One will not seek as long as one hates God.

Now moving to the altered version: The problem here again is a will problem not a cognitive problem. We do not search out what God wants because we don't care to do so.

To close, I think a good counter question is - "What does inexcusability mean if one does not presuppose ability"?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 10, 2013)

py3ak said:


> Academic publishers haven't yet realized that there is a body of Reformed people who will buy their books relating to Reformed things which would normally be purchased only by institutions, but only if they are reasonably priced. It's not a large body, but you could probably sell over three times as many copies of something like _Drawn Into Controversie_ if it were $29.99 instead of $92.00.



I would be happy to live with an alternative like this - Amazon.com: Jonathan Edwards's Theology: A Reinterpretation (T&T Clark Studies In Systematic Theology) (9780567171108): Kyle C. Strobel: Books

I am also okay with a expensive hardcover then an relatively cheap paperback a year later. The hardcover only however doesn't make a lot of sense.

Next, with various print on demand/kindle options for publishing, if one wants to get to the work into the hand of commoners, then a strictly academic publisher with expensive prices becomes something to avoid.

Lastly, here is an article on publishing and copyright issues - The Hole in Our Collective Memory: How Copyright Made Mid-Century Books Vanish - Rebecca J. Rosen - The Atlantic


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 10, 2013)

The problem is not fallen man's reasoning faculties. The question is rationality.



ChristianTrader said:


> To say that one is able to know God does not imply that one will ever do so without being regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit.


Why would a man with the ability to know God never exercise the capacity to do so?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 10, 2013)

John 3:3 (NA28)
3 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, *οὐ δύναται* ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

Jesus answered and said to him: "Amen. Amen. I am saying to you, unless one is born from above, he is *not able* to see the Kingdom of Heaven."

John 6:44 (NA28)
44 *οὐδεὶς δύναται* ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν

*No one is able* to come to me unless the the Father, Who sent me, draws him...


Do men have an excuse, before God, for rejecting the Gospel if they are not regenerated?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 10, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Academic publishers haven't yet realized that there is a body of Reformed people who will buy their books relating to Reformed things which would normally be purchased only by institutions, but only if they are reasonably priced. It's not a large body, but you could probably sell over three times as many copies of something like _Drawn Into Controversie_ if it were $29.99 instead of $92.00.
> ...



I don't quite understand how a $125 book is a livable alternative to a $92 book being too pricey.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 10, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The problem is not fallen man's reasoning faculties. The question is rationality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1)How is the question rationality?
2)One could put forward a number of reasons - Doesn't want someone above himself telling him what to do or not to do - Is afraid of the coming judgment fortold in general revelation so wishes to stick head in sand...etc

Also my question concerning the meaning of inexcusability without presupposing ability has not been addressed....

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 10, 2013)

py3ak said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



The kindle book is $25 so there is still a way for a regular person to get a copy of the book.

CT


----------



## py3ak (Aug 10, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > ChristianTrader said:
> ...



That does make a little more sense. Yes, that's an acceptable alternative.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 10, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> John 3:3 (NA28)
> 3 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, *οὐ δύναται* ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.
> 
> Jesus answered and said to him: "Amen. Amen. I am saying to you, unless one is born from above, he is *not able* to see the Kingdom of Heaven."
> ...



No, they do not have an excuse.

The issue before us is "Why are people unable to come to the Father etc?" To put the blame on cognitive faults turns the issue into a question of justice. To put the blame on a person's rebellion safeguards the justice of the situation.

CT


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 10, 2013)

As an aside on the book price, the Amazon listing shows one available from a secondary vendor, so I'm guessing it is out of print. The vendor put in a radical price on the off-chance that some one-click wonder with more money than sense might buy it.

I know this happens, because I published a paperback book of poems by my wife and sold them through Amazon back in the early days. We went through two small printings, and then let it go. A year ago I saw a secondary vendor selling a new copy of our 22 page volume for $600.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 11, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> John 6:44 (NA28)
> 44 οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν
> 
> No one is able to come to me unless the the Father, Who sent me, draws him...
> ...





ChristianTrader said:


> No, they do not have an excuse.



Again, from the article cited:


> Guilt presupposes inexcusability...
> *Inexcusability presupposes ability*...



Hence, my point. Inexcusability does NOT presuppose ability. 

As I stated, I'm not arguing in favor of Plantinga's position. Man's slavery to sin, for which he is guilty and culpable, is not an excusable "handicap". Man volitionally suppresses the knowledge he hates.

Nevertheless, the way to argue for the Biblical position is not to posit the un-Biblical notion that inexcusability presupposes ability. This is simply not true as demonstrated by the direct exegesis of many other passages that I have not cited here.

Furthermore, rationality and the faculties of reason are two different things.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 11, 2013)

Who buys books? I read close to 200 books last year. I also trimmed 100 books out of my library. I just use the public or university library system and take good notes. I hope by the end of my life to have read thousands of books, but to own only a few hundred exceptional volumes.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 11, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > John 6:44 (NA28)
> ...



Yet, you havent answered my question, which was asked a couple of posts ago. You are still missing my point. First, ability is not a term with only a single meaning. If you believe that it is then you can argue for such. Since it is not, I can argue for ability in some fashion and against ability in another fashion. We are able in the sense that there is nothing stopping us besides rebellion. You are unable to choose Jesus while you are in rebellion. If one wants to not be in rebellion then one can simply stop being in rebellion. The problem with such is that no unregenerate wants to stop being in rebellion.



> As I stated, I'm not arguing in favor of Plantinga's position. Man's slavery to sin, for which he is guilty and culpable, is not an excusable "handicap". Man volitionally suppresses the knowledge he hates.



Fine


> Nevertheless, the way to argue for the Biblical position is not to posit the un-Biblical notion that inexcusability presupposes ability. This is simply not true as demonstrated by the direct exegesis of many other passages that I have not cited here.



If it was clear then you would have already answered the question about what inexcusability means without ability. Without ability inexcusability simply becomes inability and loses its meaning a separate term.



> Furthermore, rationality and the faculties of reason are two different things.



Okay, if you can expound here to help me to see your point, it would be helpful.

CT


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 11, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > ChristianTrader said:
> ...



The chill is in the will. Only the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit can alter that.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 11, 2013)

CharlieJ said:


> Who buys books?



People who are in or are headed to a region where the library facilities do not permit very extensive borrowing.
People who are mostly confined to their quarters and unable to get out regularly.
People who follow Borges' advice to read little and reread much.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 11, 2013)

> Rom 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (20) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.


Rather than an inability to know God or keep the law (although these are byproducts), doesn't this imply that the inexcusability lies in the refusal to 1) acknowledge what may be known of God by the unregenerate which is plainly evident throughout creation, and 2) acknowledge one's own inability to be reconciled to Him because of sin? Which seems to be described here:


> Rom 1:21-25 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (22) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (24) Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, (25) because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 11, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> Yet, you havent answered my question, which was asked a couple of posts ago. You are still missing my point. First, ability is not a term with only a single meaning. If you believe that it is then you can argue for such. Since it is not, I can argue for ability in some fashion and against ability in another fashion. We are able in the sense that there is nothing stopping us besides rebellion. You are unable to choose Jesus while you are in rebellion. If one wants to not be in rebellion then one can simply stop being in rebellion. The problem with such is that no unregenerate wants to stop being in rebellion.


Cavils aside, I did not state that there is only one kind of ability. I'm not the person who stated a universal absolute that inexcusability presupposes ability. The cause of the inability is immaterial to the point. The Lord uses a verb that clearly articulates a lack of ability for which we have no excuse.


ChristianTrader said:


> f it was clear then you would have already answered the question about what inexcusability means without ability. Without ability inexcusability simply becomes inability and loses its meaning a separate term.


Clarity and persuasion are two different things. The imputation of Adam's sin - both its guilt and culpability - provides the grounds for both our inexcusability and inability. Once one leaves the Scriptures for other categories of thought then one enters an inescapable maze and I don't jump into mazes to help out those who are creating them. This is where I stand:

Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.



ChristianTrader said:


> Okay, if you can expound here to help me to see your point, it would be helpful.



Kuyper:


> When the captain of a man-of-war in a naval engagement betrays his king and raises the enemy's flag, he does not first damage or sink his ship, but he keeps it as efficient for service as possible, and with all its armament intact he does the very reverse of what he ought to do. " Optimi coruptio pessima!" says the proverb of the wise— i.e., the greater the excellency of a thing, the more dangerous its defection. If the admiral of the fleet were to choose which of his ships should betray him, he would say : " Let it be the weakest, for defection of the strongest is the most dangerous." It is true in every sphere of life that the excellent qualities of a thing or being do not disappear in reversed action, but become most excellently bad.
> 
> In this way we understand man's fall. Before it he possessed the most exquisite organism which by holy impulse was directed toward the most exalted aim. though reversed by the fall, this precious human instrument remained, but, directed by unholy impulse, it aims at a deeply unholy object.
> 
> Comparing man to a steamship, his fall did not remove the engine. But as before the fall he moved in righteousness, so he moves now in unrighteousness. In fact, as fast as he steamed then toward felicity, so fast he steams now toward perdition, i.e., away from God. Hence the retaining of the engine made his fall all the more terrible and his destruction more certain. And thus we reconcile the two: that man retained his former features of excellency, and that his destruction is sure except he be born again.



Reason is the steamship itself. Man's faculties are intact.

Rationality deals with the "aim" of the faculties of reason. It is irrational for man to betray his king and use his steamship to engage in battle against the Creator.

Put another way, a man who hears voices telling him things may properly employ reason to act upon what the voices are telling him. It is not his reason that is broken, per se, but the rational basis upon which he heeds the voices in his head.

Reformed orthodoxy has never argued that man loses the capacity to reason properly. The problem is how those faculties are aimed.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 11, 2013)

It's an ethical inability, which is therefore culpable, not a metaphysical inability, which would not be culpable.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW (Aug 11, 2013)

"Old Adam is too strong for young Melanchthon."

We have had numbers of these discussions concerning the ability prerequisite for accountability. There is an equivocation on the word "ability." Of course men are in full possession of their own thoughts and are fully accountable for the way they reason. But they are enslaved to sin. There is no ability to think a single spiritually good thought. Fallen men use their rationality to create a new reality which attributes divinity and ascribes worship to the creature rather than the Creator.

The apostle clearly states that the inexcusability of men is based upon a knowledge which they already have, not upon a knowledge which is yet to be proven. They hold the truth in unrighteousness. When they knew God they glorified Him not as God.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 12, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> It's an ethical inability, which is therefore culpable, not a metaphysical inability, which would not be culpable.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2



That basically is the issue.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 12, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > It's an ethical inability, which is therefore culpable, not a metaphysical inability, which would not be culpable.
> ...



This distinction is fundamental to our anthropology and has never been in dispute. Nevertheless, man's ethical inability is NOT excusable nor can one state that ethical inexcusability simply means ethical inability.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 12, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Peairtach said:
> ...



If the distinction has never been in dispute then what did you dispute when you found fault with the article?

Restating the controversial claim in this new form - Ethical inexcusability/culpability presupposes metaphysical ability. If one rejects metaphysical ability then ethical inexcusability reduces to/simply means ethical inability.

Now moving back to a previous claim - *"The imputation of Adam's sin - both its guilt and culpability - provides the grounds for both our inexcusability and inability."*

There is nothing in Paul's argument in Romans 1, that mentions Adam or his sin as being the ground of inexcusability (Now it obviously provides the grounds for our ethical inability). On top of this, the argument that Paul makes in Romans 1 is that the clarity of General Revelation is the foundation of the inexcusability claim. There is no place in the Bible that grounds our inexcusability in Adam's Sin/Original Sin.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 12, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> If the distinction has never been in dispute then what did you dispute when you found fault with the article?


It is quite clear what I found fault with. I will state it again:

Inexcusability does not presuppose ability.

I recognize that there are certain kinds of inability that are excusable. I cannot hold my son responsible for the command to shoot fire out of his fingers.

That said, man has an ethical responsibility to obey the command of the Gospel and he is unable to comply in Himself. He is not excused because he has inherited Adam's sin and guilt by imputation. Furthermore, because man is guilty and culpable of Adam's sin by imputation, he is _actually_ guilty and may not be excused for the disabled condition in which he was born. His inability is by imputation as is his inexcusability but they are distinct.




ChristianTrader said:


> Now moving back to a previous claim - "The imputation of Adam's sin - both its guilt and culpability - provides the grounds for both our inexcusability and inability."
> 
> There is nothing in Paul's argument in Romans 1, that mentions Adam or his sin as being the ground of inexcusability (Now it obviously provides the grounds for our ethical inability). On top of this, the argument that Paul makes in Romans 1 is that the clarity of General Revelation is the foundation of the inexcusability claim. There is no place in the Bible that grounds our inexcusability in Adam's Sin/Original Sin.


I suggest you take a basic course in Hermeneutics that will teach you that one does not form a doctrine from a single pericope. If you insist upon a puerile defense of the Biblical ground for inexcusability from a single passage then I'm not going to entertain the demand.

The Confessional ground for Adam being "disabled" by the Fall has been laid out as well as a summary statement of the sinfulness of this estate. If you wish to continue to insist upon a non-Confessional basis for the inexcusability of Adam's sin, you will not do so on this board.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 12, 2013)

Chapter I
Of the Holy Scripture

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;
------
Pop Quiz: According to the WCF, what is the ground/foundation of the inexcusabililty claim?

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 12, 2013)

WLC:
Q. 22. Did all mankind fall in that first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation,89 sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression.90

Q. 23. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?
A. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.91

Q. 24. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.92

Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin,93 the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually;94 which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.95

Q. 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?
A. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin.96

Q. 27. What misery did the fall bring upon mankind?
A. The *fall brought* upon mankind the *loss of communion* with God,97 his *displeasure and curse*; so as we are by nature children of wrath,98 *bond slaves to Satan*,99 and *justly liable to all punishments* in this world, and that which is to come.100

Q. 28. What are the punishments of sin in this world?
A. The *punishments* of sin in this world are either inward, as *blindness of mind,101 a reprobate sense,102 strong delusions,103 hardness of heart,104 horror of conscience,105 and vile affections*;106 or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures of our sakes,107 and all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments;108 together with death itself.109


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 12, 2013)

In fallen man's refusal to believe when presented with the Gospel, his "I won't believe" betrays also his inability to believe, and his inability to believe is revealed in a refusal to believe. He is thus fully unable and fully culpable at the same time.

His "Won't" reveals a "Can't", and his "Can't" reveals a "Won't". His will is sinful and bound by sin in inability, and thus he is culpable.

Only the regeneration of the Spirit can set his will free to believe and obey, and thus affect all his other faculties, which are under the influence of a corrupt will which is full of enmity towards God and His law.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 12, 2013)

Rich,
Is there a place where inexcusable is used anywhere in your copied comments? The answer is no. There is a reason for such.....the passages from the WLC are asking and answering a different question.

Inexcusability implies the ability to do otherwise. To be held responsible for a debt and other related concepts does not imply or require the ability to do otherwise. Debts also can be transferred while inexcusability cannot be transferred. For example, if a parent ran up debts and died before paying them, their children could justly be held responsible for paying those debts. However we would not say or imply that the children were inexcusable or that it is necessary for the children to be inexcusable for the paying of those debts to be proper.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 12, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> Inexcusability implies the ability to do otherwise. To be held responsible for a debt and other related concepts does not imply or require the ability to do otherwise. Debts also can be transferred while inexcusability cannot be transferred. For example, if a parent ran up debts and died before paying them, their children could justly be held responsible for paying those debts. However we would not say or imply that the children were inexcusable or that it is necessary for the children to be inexcusable for the paying of those debts to be proper.



The actual Greek word translated in Romans 1:20 is ἀναπολογήτους. While the term is translated "without excuse", it is similar to the verb ἀπολογέομαι (used in Romans 2:15) - to give a defense. It is used again in the context of Romans 2:1 pointing out that a person who judges another has no excuse or defense for his own crime in the same act. In other words, the context is one of legal judgment. The lack of "excuse" has specific reference to mounting a defense for one's actions. In Romans 1:20, the man cannot present a defense that he did not know (because it is manifest) and in Romans 2:1, the man cannot present a defense for being convicted of the same charge he levels at others.

Furthermore, your analogy above is a denial of federalism. To deny that culpability in the sin of Adam can be imputed is to deny imputation. It is not merely the guilt of Adam's sin that is imputed to his offspring but culpability and this brings about the misery that falls upon mankind spoken of in WLC 27. The punishments of this original sin spoken of in WLC are spelled out in WLC 28: "blindness of mind,101 a reprobate sense,102 strong delusions,103 hardness of heart,104 horror of conscience,105 and vile affections."

Thus the Confessions argue:

1. Adam's posterity are guilty and culpable federally.
2. This guilt results in sin and misery.
3. The punishments of this sin include "blindness of mind,101 a reprobate sense,102 strong delusions,103 hardness of heart,104 horror of conscience,105 and vile affections"


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 12, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Inexcusability implies the ability to do otherwise. To be held responsible for a debt and other related concepts does not imply or require the ability to do otherwise. Debts also can be transferred while inexcusability cannot be transferred. For example, if a parent ran up debts and died before paying them, their children could justly be held responsible for paying those debts. However we would not say or imply that the children were inexcusable or that it is necessary for the children to be inexcusable for the paying of those debts to be proper.
> ...



The simple problem is that your argument makes Paul's argument in Romans 1, either nonsense or a non sequitur. WCF I explicitly tells us that is it the light of nature, works of creation and providence that render the person inexcusable. Your counter is that the inexcusability is due to original sin. If original sin is doing the work/is the foundation then what difference does it make that the light of nature, works of creation and providence are clear? One could have the created order being as clear as mud and it doesn't matter as far as accepting the conclusion of inexcusability!

Next, how can I be guilty of denying culpability if I said that a person can be properly punished/indebted etc while not being inexcusable?

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 12, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> The simple problem is that your argument makes Paul's argument in Romans 1, either nonsense or a non sequitur. WCF I explicitly tells us that is it the light of nature, works of creation and providence that render the person inexcusable. Your counter is that the inexcusability is due to original sin. If original sin is doing the work/is the foundation then what difference does it make that the light of nature, works of creation and providence are clear? One could have the created order being as clear as mud and it doesn't matter as far as accepting the conclusion of inexcusability!


WCF1 reads: Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;1

It then cites Romans 2:14-15 and Romans 1:19-21 as prooftexts.

I have provided the Greek words used in Romans 1:20 and Romans 2:15 and both deal with the notion of being able to defend oneself against a charge. The inexcusability in Romans 1:20 deals with the _clarity_ of Revelation. The Confessions have the law of God written on men's hearts in mind in Romans 2:14-15. Neither passage states that men, in their fallen condition, are capable of apprehending the light of nature. The Confessions and the passages cited state that the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far _manifest_ things that are plain. Both the Greek and the English make plain that the reason for the inexcusability is the plainness of divine revelation. There is no deficiency in natural revelation and nobody can mount a defense on the basis that it is not plain.

Now, why can man not perceive the clarity of this Revelation? The _reason_ men cannot perceive clear Revelation lies in the punishment of sin. One has to look elsewhere in the Scriptures and Confession, in other words, to account for the fact that men lack a capacity for interpreting natural revelation correctly. Original sin grounds a man's disability. He is guilty and culpable of Adam's sin and his blindness is a punishment for this sin.

Your insistence in this passage is that man cannot be inexcusable for denying the clarity of natural Revelation unless he first possesses the ability to see properly and then suppresses that knowledge. Romans 1:19-21, when harmonized with the rest of Paul's Epistle notes that men are not only blind to natural Revelation but that the actual sin of denying the clarity of natural Revelation (due to their blindness) is condemnatory and without excuse. It is without excuse because the blindness that causes him to deny the bright rays of Revelation is not somebody else's fault but his own. He can neither mount the defense that Revelation is unclear nor can he mount the defense that he is innocent for the blindness that causes him to deny its clarity in the first place.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 13, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > The simple problem is that your argument makes Paul's argument in Romans 1, either nonsense or a non sequitur. WCF I explicitly tells us that is it the light of nature, works of creation and providence that render the person inexcusable. Your counter is that the inexcusability is due to original sin. If original sin is doing the work/is the foundation then what difference does it make that the light of nature, works of creation and providence are clear? One could have the created order being as clear as mud and it doesn't matter as far as accepting the conclusion of inexcusability!
> ...



One issue that needs to be addressed is, “What do you mean by plain”? As far as plainness or clarity there are two types: 1)Objective clarity: the concepts are clear/there are no reasonable counter arguments etc. 2)Subjective clarity: the answer to the question is clear to you or whatever person is being addressed.

Without both type of clarity one does not have inexcusability. An good analogy would be the answer to the question: What is the First Derivative of X^2? The answer is objectively clear as being 2x. If that is all that is necessary, then anyone who doesnt know the answer would be inexcuable for their lack of knowledge. That is silly position to take. You would never say that because the answer is objectively clear/plain that your children are inexcusable for not knowing the answer to such a question. One has to also have subjective clarity in order for the claim of inexcuability to hold. Remember clarity is the foundation of inexcusability. If you do not have clarity then you have the excuse. Your excusability is not tied to the clarity that someone else has.



> Now, why can man not perceive the clarity of this Revelation? The _reason_ men cannot perceive clear Revelation lies in the punishment of sin. One has to look elsewhere in the Scriptures and Confession, in other words, to account for the fact that men lack a capacity for interpreting natural revelation correctly. Original sin grounds a man's disability. He is guilty and culpable of Adam's sin and his blindness is a punishment for this sin.



We are back to our original disagreement. The terms “ability” or “capacity” are similar to the term “free will”. If someone says that we have or do not have free will, the proper next step is to ask what they mean when they use that term. Depending on what we mean by that word will determine if we should say yes we have ability or no we do not have ability. When we look elsewhere in Scripture, we see that our ability is limited in an ethical sense or we can say that our will is disordered. We are able to properly interpret General Revelation in a similar way to we have the ability to know 1+1=2. Our problem is that we do not want to know the answer and therefore we are unable to know the answer. If we wanted to know the answer then there is nothing stopping us from learning/knowing the answer.

The problem here is that you seem to be taking the blindness spoken of in Westminster as being something beyond the disordered will and more along the lines of one being unable to dunk a basketball because one is too short (while my position is that one does not dunk because they are upset that someone is telling them what to do etc.). If you press it as hard as you seem to be wanting to do, then you are stuck with a similar situation as calling your children inexcusable for their lack of math knowledge because such answers are objectively clear. But if you do not press very hard then you are stuck with my position.



> Your insistence in this passage is that man cannot be inexcusable for denying the clarity of natural Revelation unless he first possesses the ability to see properly and then suppresses that knowledge. Romans 1:19-21, when harmonized with the rest of Paul's Epistle notes that men are not only blind to natural Revelation but that the actual sin of denying the clarity of natural Revelation (due to their blindness) is condemnatory and without excuse. It is without excuse because the blindness that causes him to deny the bright rays of Revelation is not somebody else's fault but his own. He can neither mount the defense that Revelation is unclear nor can he mount the defense that he is innocent for the blindness that causes him to deny its clarity in the first place.



One question here: How do you differentiate between basic ignorance of the truth and suppression of the truth in unrighteousness?

A person cannot mount a defense because such knowledge of God is both subjective and objectively clear.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 14, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> One issue that needs to be addressed is, “What do you mean by plain”? As far as plainness or clarity there are two types: 1)Objective clarity: the concepts are clear/there are no reasonable counter arguments etc. 2)Subjective clarity: the answer to the question is clear to you or whatever person is being addressed.
> 
> Without both type of clarity one does not have inexcusability.



I appreciate the clarity with which you state your disagreement with the Reformed confessions here because I actually addressed subjective clarity in great detail. You clearly reject the fallen condition of man by insisting that the subject who receives Revelation must have the capacity to see it clearly in order to be held inexcusable by God and that objective clarity alone is not sufficient grounds for God to hold him inexcusable.

What the WCF 1 states once again is this:

*Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable...*

Now, if we have nothing else from the Standards then one may ask the question: how is man inexcusable? Is he inexcusable because it is objectively clear _and_ because it is clear to every subject who witnesses that Revelation?

WCF 1 doesn't directly address this question. One cannot "exegete" from WCF 1 or Romans 1 that the grounds for inexcusability is both objective and subjective clarity. That does not stop you from insisting that, if subjective clarity is not present, then one cannot be said to be inexcusable. 

Is any direct exegesis of Scripture offered to substantiate that man has the capacity for subjective apprehension? No. 

Is there somewhere else in the Confessions where we learn that inexcusability is grounded in both the objective and subjective clarity of Natural Revelation? No, it is your bald philosophical assertion that, without both the objective and subjective elements of clarity, God cannot be hold men inexcusable.

I took great care to spell out what the WLC teaches. I will recapitulate it again to demonstrate that you have rejected the Confessional view on fallen man's capacity to be see natural revelation clearly:

*Q. 22. Did all mankind fall in that first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation,89 sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression.90*

All men fell in Adam.

*Q. 23. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?
A. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.91*

The fall brought all mankind into an estate of sin and misery.

*Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin,93 the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually;94 which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.95*

The sinfulness of the estate that men fell into is described as:

a. Men being _guilty_ of Adam's first sin.
b. Men lose the original righteousness that Adam was created in.
c. Their nature is corrupted.
d. Men are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spriitually good.
e. Men are wholly inclined to evil, and continually so.
f. All actual sins proceed from the above.

*Q. 27. What misery did the fall bring upon mankind?
A. The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God,97 his displeasure and curse; so as we are by nature children of wrath,98 bond slaves to Satan,99 and justly liable to all punishments in this world, and that which is to come.100*

Describing the misery that the fall brings upon man:

a. Man lost communion with God
b. Men are under the curse of God and are by nature children of wrath.
c. Men are bond slaves to Satan.
d. Men are justly liable to all punishments in this world and that which is to come.

*Q. 28. What are the punishments of sin in this world?
A. The punishments of sin in this world are either inward, as blindness of mind,101 a reprobate sense,102 strong delusions,103 hardness of heart,104 horror of conscience,105 and vile affections;106 or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures of our sakes,107 and all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments;108 together with death itself.109*

Having just described the "misery" that befalls men in the Fall, the WLC moves on to what the punishments of sin are in the world:

The punishments of sin are:

Inwardly:
a. Blindness of mind
b. A reprobate sense
c. strong delusions
d. hardness of heart
e. horror of conscience
f. vile affections

Outwardly:
a. the curse of God upon the creatures of our sakes
b. all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments
c. death itself


In other words, you state that man, the subject, cannot be held inexcusable unless he has the ability to see Natural Revelation but what I had quoted to you was quite clear:

Man, in his fallen estate, has *blindness of mind*, a *reprobate sense*, *strong delusions*, *hardness of heart*.

In a word, man is spiritually dead. One would have thought that, on a Reformed board this is axiomatic. As Luther told Erasmus: dead doesn't mean a little bit alive.




ChristianTrader said:


> We are back to our original disagreement. The terms “ability” or “capacity” are similar to the term “free will”. If someone says that we have or do not have free will, the proper next step is to ask what they mean when they use that term. Depending on what we mean by that word will determine if we should say yes we have ability or no we do not have ability. When we look elsewhere in Scripture, we see that our ability is limited in an ethical sense or we can say that our will is disordered. We are able to properly interpret General Revelation in a similar way to we have the ability to know 1+1=2. Our problem is that we do not want to know the answer and therefore we are unable to know the answer. If we wanted to know the answer then there is nothing stopping us from learning/knowing the answer.
> 
> The problem here is that you seem to be taking the blindness spoken of in Westminster as being something beyond the disordered will and more along the lines of one being unable to dunk a basketball because one is too short (while my position is that one does not dunk because they are upset that someone is telling them what to do etc.). If you press it as hard as you seem to be wanting to do, then you are stuck with a similar situation as calling your children inexcusable for their lack of math knowledge because such answers are objectively clear. But if you do not press very hard then you are stuck with my position.



As I noted earlier, we have not lost our reasoning faculties. Our ability to do math and to use our reason is not in question. What is in question is man's fruition with natural Revelation. 

The fact that _mankind_, in Adam, was able to interpret natural Revelation before the Fall is antecedent to the issue at hand in WCF 1. Metaphysically there was no pre-Fall disposition toward sin or disablement (contra RCC teaching). Yet, though the Confessions don't say that Adam's _nature_ changed, they do teach that the _state_ of man after the Fall changed. WCF 1 is not talking about pre-Fall Adam but fallen humanity. No man after Adam is in Adam's pre-fallen state. Adam had the ability to sin and the ability to not sin. Man after the Fall possess only the ability to sin. This has been Augustinianism since Augustine. As I labored to carefully demonstrate, mankind is spiritually blind because he is under the wrath and curse of God. He is guilty of Adam's sin and, not only so, but his blindness can be said to be _his own fault_. Dort expresses this well:



> Article 15: Reprobation
> 
> Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God's eternal election-- those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to *leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves;* not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.



I quote that because the curse of God (that includes every sin and misery quoted) cannot be said to be someone else's fault but it is every person's fault. They are all counted guilty and culpable in Adam.

The question, then, is not whether man was created upright but what current _STATE_ man is in. He is in a state of sin and misery and this state is what the Confessions are speaking of in WCF 1. It cannot possibly be speaking of man's pre-fallen state nor can it be speaking of a believer after redemption. The only state that it can be speaking of is man's condition after the Fall. In this condition, mankind is DEAD spiritually. See this article on the fourfold state: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/four-fold.html

Saying: "Ah well, if man _wanted_ to know the answer is like saying: "Well, if man wanted to obey the Law of God he could." Oh wait, I forgot. He's _dead_. 

So your conclusion from WCF 1 amounts to this: If man was not in a state of sin and misery, he would want to see Natural Revealtion, therefore he is subjectively able to see it.

Fallen man is inexcusable because Revelation is clear. He cannot see because he is fallen. He is fallen because he sinned in Adam. His fallen state precludes any desire to see because he is _dead_. Any comparison to a child being required to dunk a ball is reprehensible.

Let me then emphatically conclude (because apparently I was not clear enough prior to this):

1. WCF 1 states that the clarity of Revelation leaves men inexcusable.
2. It may be implied that this includes both objective and subjective clarity if we knew nothing else from the Scriptures or the Westminster Standards.
3. It is plain, however, from the Scriptures and the Standards that man, in the state of sin and misery, has been cursed with spiritual blindness.
4. This state of sin and blindness is antecedent to Romans 1 and WCF 1.
5. God holds men inexcusable for the objective clarity of Natural Revelation alone because man, in the state of sin and misery, has no ability to now see it.
6. God knows man cannot see Revelation (unless He be born again) because it was His judgment against man's sin that mankind would be dead to the things of God.
7. Mankind is justly liable to condemnation for rejecting the objective clarity of Natural Revelation even as he is justly liable for every other sin he commits as a slave to unrighteousness. The fact that he cannot do otherwise does not excuse his liability because his condition of slavery is his own doing.
8. Ought implies can is a Pelagian notion.

To conclude that WCF 1 or Romans 1 holds that man, in the state of sin and misery, has the subjective ability to see is absurd.


----------

