Is God Responsible for Sin?

The question “Is God Responsible for Sin?” is one of the more difficult questions posed by any system of theology. It is clear from a Biblical standpoint, that God is not responsible for sin. 1 John 3:4-9 reads, “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.” Not only can God not sin, neither could Jesus sin, because He was born of God, in whom there is no sin. Sin itself is defined in the Word as “falling short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Obviously God cannot fall short of His Own character and glory. So, it is clear that God cannot sin. God is righteous in everything He does. (Daniel 9:14)

Man is no doubt responsible for his own sin. Does God share in this responsibility for sin? There is no doubt that God allowed sin to come into the world and He continues to allow sin to reign in the world. Anyone who acknowledges God in His omnipotence and omniscience has to accept the validity of this statement. The question is to what extent is God responsible for sin? Calvinists look at this question from the standpoint of God’s grace. There are two basic positions on the Grace of God with respect to sin. First of all, there is God’s common grace that is extended to all men, who are all sinners. Because of God’s common grace, depraved men are not as depraved or as evil as they could be. God’s common grace extends various blessings to all men, righteous and unrighteous alike. God’s common grace allows men to experience love one for another. God’s common grace allows men to live even in a depraved, unregenerate state.

This common grace does not produce saving faith in the unregenerate man. There is a special or a saving grace that God gives to the elect to produce regeneration that leads to saving faith and repentance and new birth. This is necessary because the Calvinist understands that unregenerate man is dead in his trespass and sin. He is born with this sinful nature and the only thing the unregenerate man can do is sin. Without God’s special or saving grace, this sinful man cannot “not sin.” When God places this special saving grace into the unregenerate’s sinful heart, a new nature is born in the heart of this individual and he NOW has the potential to “not sin” and therefore exercise saving faith and repentance. In fact, he not only has the potential to “not sin”, he will not sin in falling sort of the glory of God in conversion; for he WILL come to Christ in saving faith and repentance and be born again. In this case, God is directly responsible for the new born child of God passing from death unto life. Conversion is solely and singularly God’s responsibility.

So, is God responsible for those who do not exercise saving faith? Is God responsible for those who die without Christ’s imputed righteousness and do not go to heaven? The Calvinist will say, “No. God is not responsible for any who die and go to hell. All men sin and the wages of sin is death. So, those whom God chooses not to save, simply get what they deserve. God is not unjust in the execution of His justice. Because of His Grace, some are given eternal life and those will escape hell and live in heaven with God for all eternity.

God is responsible for those who come to Christ, according to the Calvinist. It appears that even though all men are sinners and all men deserve to die, since God has chosen to save some to eternal live, He has at least by default, not chosen to allow others to live. This makes the God of the Calvinist responsible for those who are allowed to escape the penalty for their sin and consequently equally responsible for those who are not able to escape the consequences of their sin. Like it or not, Calvinism cannot escape the ramifications of reprobation. If God is solely responsible for allowing some to escape the penalty of their sin, He is directly responsible for those who are not given that privilege and He is therefore solely responsible for their eternal damnation. He is not responsible for man’s sin, but He is completely responsible for their not being set free from the penalty of their sin.

Here is where the error can be found in Calvinism. Calvinism looks at the Grace of God as if Grace is the motivating factor for everything that God does. Since the Calvinist sees everything related to God through the lens of His grace, common grace and special grace are paramount to the Calvinist. If love and not grace can be established as the motivating factor in the heart of God, one might be able to formulate a completely different set of parameters for God’s will to operate in with respect to man and the issues of the existence of sin. Consider the following concepts.

God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in His would not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16) God has loved man with an “everlasting love.” (Jeremiah 31:3, Romans 8:31-39) God created Adam and Eve and saw that it was good. “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ’Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’ And God said, ‘See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food’; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:28-31)

God created man for fellowship that would be based on a special relationship. God walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the garden. Even after Adam sinned, God came into the garden and called out to Adam, “Adam, where are you?” God did not have to ask that question. He knew what had happened. He knew where Adam was and praise God He knew what He was going to do to right the relationship that Adam had broken.

God told Moses, “I want to be your God.” (Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 11:45; 25:38; 26:12; Numbers 15;41) Then Jeremiah and Ezekiel proclaim that Israel will be God’s people and that He will be their God. (Jeremiah 30:22; Ezekiel 36:28) This special relationship that exists in Adam, Abraham, Moses and throughout Israel’s history, is the story of God’s special love for Israel and the world. This can be seen in God’s curse on Satan, that Eve’s offspring shall bruise the head of the serpent. Eve’s offspring is a general reference to mankind as well as a specific reference to the Lord Jesus. In I Kings 10, the Bible says that God loved Israel and this is the first direct reference to God’s love for men. However, it must be understood that God created man so that He could have a relationship with him. God not need this relationship; however, He did have a desire to create man for a relationship. In this quest to have a relationship founded on the principle of love, God loved man unconditionally. His love for His creation was not predicated on man’s love for God in return. In this setting, God’s grace is an expression of His love, in that it is His love that is totally and completely unmerited and undeserved by man. God loved man in spite of his sin.

Here is where the principle of love differs from the principle of grace. If the motivating factor of man’s creation in the mind of God is love and not grace, then sin can be seen as the result of man’s failing to love God in response to His love for man. While it is true that God’s love for man is unconditional, His provisions for man are conditioned by man’s response to His love. In the Garden of Eden, God did not cause sin. He had nothing to do with the sin that Adam and Eve committed. He was responsible for the love that He demonstrated to them. Adam and Eve were responsible for the choices they made in response to the love God showed to them. Their continued choices determined His continued presence and protection and provisions. They chose to defy His Word to them. God’s love for them did not change with their sin. His relationship with them did change.

In the exercise of this original sin, Adam lost the personal presence he enjoyed with God. Sin separated Adam from God’s presence. God told Adam in the day that you eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, you shall surely die. (Genesis 2:17) What happened? Death is the absence of life. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the Life.” (John 14:6) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.” (John 1:1-4) “For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. Then they said to Him, ‘Lord, give us this bread always.’ And Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst’.” (John 6:33-36) “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63-64) God is the giver and sustainer of life. He is the creator of life. When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost the perpetual presence of God. Their sin separated them from God which caused their death. Sin causes separation from God; separation from God is the definition of spiritual death. The root of sin in the garden was the failure of Adam and Eve to rightly respond to God’s love for them by remaining obedient to Him.

Abram’s faith is predicated on his response to God’s command for him to leave his homeland and go to a land that God would show to him. Abram no doubt learned about the love God from his family. Abram is the tenth generation from Noah. Noah’s father was the great grandson of Enoch, who walked with God and was no more. (Genesis 5:21) Abram knew about the God of creation. He knew about the God that Enoch walked with. He knew about the great God who saved Noah from the flood. When God promised him a son, Abram trusted God and followed Him for 25 years before he received the son of promise.

In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, God delivers the following discourse to the children of Israel concerning their response to His love for them and their choice concerning His continued provisions and protection: “For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.”

“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

It is clear in this passage that man’s choices do not alter God’s love for man but they do affect His presence, which affects His protection and His provisions for man. God’s love remains constant but His grace is predicated on man’s response to His love as revealed by His Word and His efforts to reconcile the world unto Himself. This is why God sent Jesus into the world in the first place. Jesus is the ultimate expression of the Love of God for men. In John 14, Jesus tells the disciples that they who have seen Him have seen the Father. The He goes on to make the following statement, “He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” (John 14:21) Again, Jesus said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (John 14:15) “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. (John 15:9-10)

“Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world — our faith. 5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:1-5) “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it.” (2 John 6)

Here is the real point. It is love and not grace that is the motivating factor in God’s creative work in mankind. Love demands a response. Reciprocal love is not even possible if there is no choice and no possibility of rejection. A relationship is not possible without the potential for rejection. In creating Adam, God knew that rejection was inevitable. He knew that Adam would sin. He knew that Adam would fail to respond perfectly to His love for him. God knew that Adam would not respond in perfect love to Him. That is what sin is. Jesus did fulfill the Law perfectly and did respond perfectly to God’s love for Him. In doing so, Jesus never experienced separation from His heavenly Father and that means death never had dominion over Him until the sins of the world were placed on His shoulders. In the resurrection, Jesus overcame death, hell and the grave because He Himself never experienced the sting of death spiritually. He died physically so that those who would believe in Him could live with Him spiritually forever and the same power that raised him from the dead is the same power that will raise up those who have placed their faith and trust in Him in this life.

God is not the author of sin. He is the giver of life through the gift of His love. Man’s response to God’s love through revelation and reconciliation is what determines God’s response to man’s immediate and eternal future. Man’s sin is not determined at all by God but rather is the result of man’s failure to respond to God’s love in a perfect way. This in no way compromises God’s love for man. It in no way obstructs His perfect will for a relationship with men. On the cross Jesus provides a way to connect sinful men and a Holy God; for life is contained in the blood. (Leviticus 17:11,14; Deuteronomy 12:23; John 6:53,54) Jesus said, “I am come that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10)

Life and love are inseparable. We love because He first loved us. (I John 4:19) Love requires a response. This response is two-fold. Man’s first response to God’s love is seen in his response to His commandments, which is a measure of man’s response to God’s love for him. Man’s response determines God’s response as far as His presence is concerned with men. His presence brings His protection and His provisions. His presence brings God’s best into the life of an individual. The ultimate result of God’s presence is life. When a man’s response is not as God would have it, then His presence is restricted along with His protection and His provisions and men are allowed to flounder in the world on their own until they realize as the prodigal did, that returning to the Father is the only thing to do. God’s love and not His grace is the ultimate expression of His purpose for creation.

Is God responsible for sin? No. God is responsible for love. Man is responsible for his response to God’s love. When man fails to respond to God’s love in a perfect way, sin becomes realty. That sin separates man from God. This separation is the definition of “death”; for death is the absence of life. Since Jesus is life and God is the “Giver and Sustainer of life,” His presence is life. God’s presence establishes a relationship with man. A relationship is an ongoing process of practicing the presence of one another. It is an ongoing process of choices and decisions that are affected by the relationship as well as an ongoing process that affects the relationship. As man fails in the exercise of this relationship, through reconciliation, God is constantly and consistently seeking to repair the relationship and keep it in tact.

The primary purpose of God in creation is the ongoing process of a relationship with man, who is the crown jewel of His creation. Sin is the failure of the part on man in that relationship. Redemption is the process on the part of God to repair that broken relationship. Even though God did not create sin and is not the author of it, He still has power to overcome it because love conquers all by covering a multitude of sins! (I Peter 4:8)

Grateful to be in His Grip!

><>’

Advertisements

16 responses to this post.

  1. “since God has chosen to save some to eternal live, He has at least by default, not chosen to allow others to live.”

    Bob,

    The sentence I quoted above fails to properly represent God’s role in salvation and reprobation. You write that God does not choose to “allow others to live.” This language assumes that the non-elect are somehow actively trying to ascertain eternal life (if only God would “allow” them to). This is Biblically untrue. It is clear that no one seeks God. No one desires to be righteous without being born again or regenerated.

    God doesn’t keep unregenerate man from exercising saving faith, man doesn’t possess that if it is not gifted by God. God witholding his saving grace is not the same action as pouring out his saving grace on the underserving, God-hating, rebel sinner.

    Reply

  2. I think given the context of the statement and the CLEAR presentation of the Calvinist position on conversion, your objection is first of all baseless and in fact contradictory to your own premise. Here is the partial sentence in its context.

    “So, is God responsible for those who do not exercise saving faith? Is God responsible for those who die without Christ’s imputed righteousness and do not go to heaven? The Calvinist will say, “No. God is not responsible for any who die and go to hell. All men sin and the wages of sin is death. So, those whom God chooses not to save, simply get what they deserve. God is not unjust in the execution of His justice. Because of His Grace, some are given eternal life and those will escape hell and live in heaven with God for all eternity.

    God is responsible for those who come to Christ, according to the Calvinist. It appears that even though all men are sinners and all men deserve to die,since God has chosen to save some to eternal live, He has at least by default, not chosen to allow others to live. This makes the God of the Calvinist responsible for those who are allowed to escape the penalty for their sin and consequently equally responsible for those who are not able to escape the consequences of their sin. Like it or not, Calvinism cannot escape the ramifications of reprobation. If God is solely responsible for allowing some to escape the penalty of their sin, He is directly responsible for those who are not given that privilege and He is therefore solely responsible for their eternal damnation. He is not responsible for man’s sin, but He is completely responsible for their not being set free from the penalty of their sin.”

    As I went on to explain, the Calvinist position has God allowing the elect to escape the penalty of sin while not allowing the non-elect that same opportunity or privilege.

    Now as to your own argument, “God doesn’t keep unregenerate man from exercising saving faith, man doesn’t possess that if it is not gifted by God. God witholding his saving grace is not the same action as pouring out his saving grace on the underserving, God-hating, rebel sinner.”

    God does keep unregenerate man from exercising saving faith, for as you note, God is the One who pours out “His saving faith on the undeserving, God-hating sinner.” If He does NOT pour out His saving grace on the undeserving, God hating sinner, God by necessity is the One who keeps unregenerate man from exercising saving faith.

    Again you wrote, “man doesn’t possess that if it is not gifted by God.” Precisely. If God does not give man “saving faith” he cannot exercise it. Thus, given the context of the original statement, “since God has chosen to save some to eternal live, He has at least by default, not chosen to allow others to live (eternally)” is accurate given the Calvinist position on soteriology.

    Grateful to be in His Grip!

    ><>’

    Reply

  3. One must allow for category distinctions between God withholding saving grace and justly exercising his justice and the action of God pouring out his saving grace on the sinner. To not allow the distinction is to commit the error of equal ultimacy. The actions are not the same.

    The sinner cannot answer to God, “I’m only guilty and condemned because you withheld saving grace.” The sinner is guilty and condemned outside of any gift of God. However, the righteous can and will say, “I am innocent only because of your saving grace.”

    Reply

  4. You wrote, “One must allow for category distinctions between God withholding saving grace and justly exercising his justice and the action of God pouring out his saving grace on the sinner.”

    The point that I made in my original position is justly, that God has withheld saving grace and He is therefore directly responsible for not allowing the unregenerate to escape the penalty of sin.

    I am really not sure what it is that you are saying or objecting to. If God and God alone is responsible for determining who will and who will not receive the gift of His saving faith, then He is solely responsible for Who is saved and who is not saved. Since ALL are sinners and ALL deserve eternal damnation, ALL are in the same place BEFORE regeneration takes place. The Calvinist position is that God chooses WHO is saved and therefore by virtue of NOT choosing someone, He and He alone is directly responsible for those who are not saved.

    That is the point that I was making in my original post.

    ><>’

    Reply

  5. I first objected to the word “allow” because that word is loaded with ability. It would be better to say that God “passes over” or “exercises his justice” on the non-elect than to say that God does not allow the non-elect to come to saving faith. “Allow” does not properly communicate the issue.

    Saying that God does not “allow” the non-elect to come to faith assumes man wants to come to faith and that God is restraining them from doing so. This is not the case. Man is responsible for his own lack of faith, not God. If God gives saving faith to you and not me, I am still responsible for my lack of faith, not God. You are placing man’s responsibly for faith on God because God gives faith to some and not others. This is not the biblical account.

    Reply

  6. So your whole argument can be settled by saying, ““since God has chosen to save some to eternal live, He has chosen to pass over others to receive eternal life.” Understand, I am wanting to be gramattically correct in that I am NOT expressing my soteriological views but seeking to establish an accurate Calvinist Salvific view.

    I don’t have a problem with that statement. (I still don’t have a problem with the former one either.)

    How can man be responsible for a lack of faith if Faith is a gift from God? Understand something; I do not interpret Ephesians 2:8 in that way BUT since you do, that is the thrust of my question. Man is responsible for his sin but I do not see how man can be responsible for not having something that only God can give, if God does not give it. I submit that you are correct when you say, “You are placing man’s responsibly for faith on God because God gives faith to some and not others.” This is an accurate indightment against Calvinism, in my opinion.

    Grateful to be in His Grip!

    ><>’

    Reply

  7. Man is responsible for his sin but I do not see how man can be responsible for not having something that only God can give, if God does not give it.

    Bob,

    Is not believing that Jesus is the son of God a sin?

    Reply

  8. uuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh yea.

    ><>’

    Reply

  9. Do all men, every individual human being, possess the ability to believe that Jesus is the son of God?

    Reply

    • Make your point. In your original posted objection you said, “God doesn’t keep unregenerate man from exercising saving faith, man doesn’t possess that if it is not gifted by God. God witholding his saving grace is not the same action as pouring out his saving grace on the underserving, God-hating, rebel sinner.” You then said, “The sinner is guilty and condemned outside of any gift of God.

      You went on to conclude, “This is not the case. Man is responsible for his own lack of faith, not God. If God gives saving faith to you and not me, I am still responsible for my lack of faith, not God. You are placing man’s responsibly for faith on God because God gives faith to some and not others.”

      My concluding stattement was, “Man is responsible for his sin but I do not see how man can be responsible for not having something that only God can give, if God does not give it.” Man is condemned because of his sin; not his lack of faith. Faith is the remedy for his sin.

      Therefore, according to Calvinism, God is responsible for the remedy for sin, which is His gift of faith to the unregenerate. So, if God does not give the remedy of faith to an individual, that individual is condemned to an eternity in hell. His sin indeed condemned him.

      However, God is responsible for that person’s eternal state because He (Who is the Only One who CAN give saving faith) did not give the remedy for sin to that lost person.

      Grateful to be in His Grip!

      ><>’

      Reply

  10. You did not answer my question regarding man’s ability/inability to believe. I am trying to understand your position.

    I am confused when you state:

    A. Man is condemned for his sin
    B. Not believing Jesus is the son of God is a sin

    and then C. Man is not responsible for the sin of not believing.

    Do you see how that does not follow? You admit lacking faith is sin, and man is responsible for sin, yet man is not responsible for the sin of lacking faith. Sin is sin, regardless of moral ability. Therefore, man is solely responsible for his sin of unbelief, not God.

    Reply

    • Joshua,

      This will be your last post if you continue this particular line of logic. You wrote, “Do you see how that does not follow? You admit lacking faith is sin, and man is responsible for sin, yet man is not responsible for the sin of lacking faith.” I have not said anywhere that man is not responsible for the sin of not believing. I have not put words in your mouth and you will not put words in mine, especially on this BLOG.

      I have been quoting YOUR own statements. My point is clear. Calvinists contend and you echo this in the comments above, that faith is a gift of God to the unregenerate person. The unregenerate cannot exercise faith unless and until God gives him the gift of faith. So, given this Calvinist premise, man is not responsible for the sin of lacking faith.”

      You can address this statement, which is what you have already addressed, or you can work on Sunday’s sermon. I do not have time to run in circles with your “line of logic.”

      ><>’

      Reply

  11. Joshua wrote:

    “I am confused when you state:

    A. Man is condemned for his sin
    B. Not believing Jesus is the son of God is a sin

    and then C. Man is not responsible for the sin of not believing.

    Do you see how that does not follow? You admit lacking faith is sin, and man is responsible for sin, yet man is not responsible for the sin of lacking faith.”

    This is disingenuous. On the Calvinistic view, man cannot be held responsible for the sin of unbelief, because on Calvinism, God is the one who “creates the very thoughts and intents of the soul” (B.B. Warfield, quoted in Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 31-32). Clearly, the logical conclusion of this is that God causes the very unbelief that man is condemned for. On such a deterministic worldview, man cannot justly be held responsible for that which was outside of his control.

    On the Calvinistic view, no one can even have faith in God until God first irresistibly regenerates them (regeneration precedes faith).

    This was Bob’s point; he wasn’t making a blanket statement that man is not responsible for the sin of unbelief, but rather, on the Calvinistic view, man cannot be responsible for his unbelief.

    Joshua again wrote:

    “Sin is sin, regardless of moral ability. Therefore, man is solely responsible for his sin of unbelief, not God.”

    Clearly you are ignorant of Calvinistic theology, for on Calvinism (universal, divine, causal determinism) God actively causes the very thoughts and intents of the soul; it is God who actively causes sin. It is hard to imagine how God could not be responsible for the sin of unbelief, given that He was the one who (supposedly) caused it in the first place.

    Reply

  12. Matthew,

    You are correct in my intent (with respect to this line of comments) as you wrote… “This was Bob’s point; he wasn’t making a blanket statement that man is not responsible for the sin of unbelief, but rather, on the Calvinistic view, man cannot be responsible for his unbelief.”

    I am not comfortable with the statement, “man cannot be responsible for his unbelief” even in the Calvinist setting because the language is so difficult for people to wrap their minds around. I think that is really part of the problem with Joshua’s argument and in reverse actually, as he is trying to make me say things I was not saying… so that is why I reiterated the issue of “faith as a gift”…

    If faith is indeed a “gift from God” (as Calvinists contend… in error as I see it) and this faith itself is not attainable unless God gives it THEN faith as the only remedy for the penalty for sin becomes an argument that is more difficult to side step than the argument that “man is not responsible for his unbelief.” Most people see this last statement and forget about the real argument and focus in on that statement.

    Much of the problem with a LOT of discussion on blogs and issues in general is that people see one of two things… they tend to see the forest or the trees… people in general lack the ability to see the trees AND the forest as well as each separately. To illustrate my point, Joshua’s pin pointing this one statement out of all that I said in my original post was really interesting in my opinion.

    It is amazing how much discussion in a lot of blog posts center around a particular phrase that does not even reflect the essence of the post.

    Thanks for stopping in!

    Grateful to be in His Grip!

    ><>’

    Reply

  13. Hi there Bob,

    I understand completely… I apologize for basically putting words in your mouth. I should have been more careful.

    With kind regards,
    Matthew

    Reply

  14. Matthew,

    I was not implying that you had put words in my mouth at all… just clarifying my thinking on the issue of using “unbelief” and “faith as a remedy for sin.”

    Appreciate your comments.

    Bob

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: