Posts Tagged ‘Moral Responsibility’

Response to comment about Chris Broussard article

A while back I placed an article on my blog entitled “Should Chris Broussard be suspended from ESPN”. I had a commenter comment on this post, who claimed to be a Christian, but in the final outcome he did not view civil laws as being derived from God, but makes the claim that man is autonomous to make his own civil laws as he sees fit. I approved the commenter’s first few comments, but when the commenter began to rail and accuse my responses as being Pharisaical, I then cut the commenter off. Here is the final comment from this individual.


“You clearly responded without reading my statement… Your statement represented the puny thinking of a closed mind – not even the willingness to read the statement you’re addressing!
1. I celebrated Chris’ statement and agreed with it based on Romans 1, which I noted.
2. I satiated that I adamantly disagree with homosexuals marriage.
3. Civil rights are derived from being a citizen of the country you live in, based on that country’s laws.
4. Your Pharisee mentality really speaks to the parable of the toothpick in the versus the telephone pole in your own…
Read what was written before you waste time responding to your own issues.”


First my comments to this individual were not driven by the puny thinking of a closed mind for reasons that I will state in my next few points.

Secondly, this individual claimed that he celebrated Chris Broussard’s statement by appealing to Romans 1; yet had he believed Romans 1, then he would not declare that civil laws are derived from men whom have an autonomous mind set.

Thirdly, this commenter claimed that he disagreed with homosexual marriage. If this were true then he would not be a liberal concerning civil government.

Fourthly, this individual claims that civil rights are derived from being a citizen of the country in which one lives. It is true that civil rights are given to individuals within the country of which they live, but to make the claim that these countries have the right to make any and all laws that they so choose is to view the world through an autonomous mindset. Men can and have gotten together within the government systems of the countries, of which they live, and have made laws to govern their country. But do these individuals have the right to change the laws of nature, of which God has placed within this universe? This is the question. Men have no more right to change the week to an eight day week, than they do to allow two homosexuals to marry. God established the seven day week pattern from creation and has also established the marital pattern, of one man and one woman being united in holy matrimony, from creation. When these government officials make laws, against the laws of which God has established, then they are acting against God himself and shall be brought into judgment. Remember the nations that forget God shall perish Psalm 9:17.

Fifthly, this individual argues like an atheist. Atheists make the claim that morality is derived from nature. Yet nature is amoral. Since nature is amoral, then morality could not be derived from nature. Other Atheists claim that societies make up their own system of morality and this is where morality comes from. If this were true, then which society has the right system of morality? We see nations governed by Totalitarianism, Socialism, Communism, Democracy, etc… Certainly if morality were derived from society, then we should see a unified system across the globe, which is in place for the good of all individuals. The fact that there is diversity in the governing of countries just shows that there is one moral system, of which men have corrupted and perverted. For instance, no matter where one goes, most people believe that lying, adultery, and theft is wrong. The reason there is a unified concept concerning these things is because morality is something that is not inherent within us, but something that comes from outside us. It is a transcendent law that presses down upon all men. If this were not true, then no one would have the right to call other society’s actions immoral. Matter fact, if this were not true, then no one would have the right to call their neighbor’s actions immoral.

This is the same for civil laws. Government has been established by God as a means to thwart evil. Romans 13 states, that those in government positions are there as ministers of God for the purpose of thwarting evil. But just because certain governments don’t hold to the Bible, as its guide, does not mean that they are not accountable to establish laws that thwart evil. As I mentioned above, the laws of morality transcend us and are pressing down upon us. The laws that are established by government should be established for the betterment of society, not for the destroying of it. Therefore laws that allow two people of the same sex to marry and adopt children, not only destroys the foundation of society, but is an act of defiance to God, who established foundational laws that should govern society.

Finally, this blog views the world through what could be called a Biblical World view. In other words, this blog interprets all things through what God has declared. Anyone who does not see the world through the lens of the Bible has taken an anti-God and anti-Biblical approach to natural things. The Biblical approach to the universe is not the mindset of a Pharisee, but should be the mindset of all of God’s chosen elect. We are never to accept what God says concerning how to run the church, but then reject what he says about how men are to behave themselves within a societal setting. We are to accept what God has stated concerning both areas in question. God alone knows what is best. This is why he gave men commands, of which to obey, within the realm of this world. One man and one woman, united together in holy matrimony, shall keep diseases at bay, and also reproduces in order that society can continue. Without these foundational principles in place, no society will last long. Two men and two women cannot reproduce offspring. Two homosexuals that come together and adopt children cannot raise those children in the same way that a heterosexual couple could. The process going on within our legal arena in this country will have drastic and irreparable consequences. 

If God is Sovereign in Salvation, then how can Man be Responsible?

I often ask people whether they believe that God is sovereign or in other words, does God control all events in this world? The answer I get most of the time is, “No, God does not control all events in this world.” My answer to them is that they are atheist. When I tell them this they are shocked and appalled that I would say that they do not believe in God.
I usually go into my defense by explaining to them that what I am talking about is not distinctly Christian. In other words we are not specifically even talking about Christ or Christianity here. What we are discussing is the definition of God-ness. In other words if God exists, then by very definition he would have to be sovereign; for a god who isn’t sovereign, isn’t God.
In their defense I want too say that maybe, just maybe they are trying to defend God’s holiness by not attributing to him all the evil deeds done by men in this world. Unfortunately, however, most just believe that God created this world and left it to itself. In other words they believe that God is not working his will through every event that happens in this world, but that men are free to do whatsoever they choose, good or bad.
Therefore our post here has to do with whether or not men are responsible for their actions; since God is sovereign and controls all events in this world. To many, this is a contradiction. I was listening to a series of lectures the other day by Douglas F. Kelly. He stated that many have tried to harmonize these two seemingly contradictory concepts, but no one has succeeded. He said that no one has given a satisfactory answer.
I do not believe myself to be super intelligent, nor greater than others throughout church history. Yet I believe that there is a satisfactory answer to this seemingly contradiction.
God is sovereign and controls his universe. He created it and has complete control over everything that happens within it. I would affirm that God is both transcendent and immanent. To be transcendent means that God is not part of his creation, but is higher than the created order. To be immanent means that God is personal or a God that is at hand; working in his creation, as it pleases him.
I also affirm that man is responsible. Since God is man’s Creator, then man owes him complete allegiance. Whatsoever God commands, man is obligated to do. But the dilemma most find themselves in when contemplating these two concepts is: If God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, then how could man be responsible for doing what God has decreed for him to do?
When Theologians wrestle with this concept they use two different terms: Concurrence and Confluence. These terms describe the act of flowing together. Just as two rivers flow into one and become one river, even so God is working as man works, in order to fulfill his will and purpose. This doctrine in no way teaches that God coerces men to do what they do. Yet why can’t what man does also be what God has decreed for him to do?
Though God in no way coerces man to do what he does, God does have the right as Creator to restrain sin as he sees fit or to remove his restraints to allow the sinner to choose sin. Therefore God can control what the sinner does by restraining or not restraining the sinner. The sinner left to himself will always choose sin.
Adam fell and was punished by being given a sin nature. Adam passed that nature on to his descendants. Adam and his descendants are commanded to do what God ask. They are commanded to obey Christ. Yet man has no ability to do what God asks, nor to come to Christ. Therefore God gives grace to whom he pleases. He is not obligated to save men. Nonetheless, God has chosen to save some and he gives them to Christ. The rest are still responsible to come to Christ.
Therefore you can see by these statements how God can be sovereign and man still be responsible.