PDA

View Full Version : Romans 1:21 and Total Depravity



mikebr
Nov 15th 2008, 02:35 AM
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


If you believe in Total Depravity and you are a Calvinists how do you reconcile it with this verse?

Back2Front
Nov 15th 2008, 02:59 AM
Here is how the Holy Spirit has had me see this verse

Red additions are mine.


21 Because that, when they knew God but were deceived by sin, they glorified him not as God and glorified themselves as they sinned against his Torah inventing convenient ways of worship and lifestyle that suited themselves rather than what God wrote as law that was pleasing to him, neither were thankful as represented by their sin; but became vain in their imaginations thinking that they were in the spirit or had favor with God and didn't have to follow the law, and their foolish heart was darkened, leading them to accuse and persecute anyone who attempted to bring them back to the law in the Spirit of Christs Love and sacrifice as it was intended. Also causing them to enslave anyone they UNDER their version of law that they invented so as to rule, control, and lord over people as self imposed Gods.

Diolectic
Nov 15th 2008, 03:55 AM
Here is how the Holy Spirit has had me see this verse
21 Because that, when they knew God but were deceived by sin, they glorified him not as God and glorified themselves as they sinned against his Torah inventing convenient ways of worship and lifestyle that suited themselves rather than what God wrote as law that was pleasing to him, neither were thankful as represented by their sin; but became vain in their imaginations thinking that they were in the spirit or had favor with God and didn't have to follow the law, and their foolish heart was darkened, leading them to accuse and persecute anyone who attempted to bring them back to the law in the Spirit of Christs Love and sacrifice as it was intended. Also causing them to enslave anyone they UNDER their version of law that they invented so as to rule, control, and lord over people as self imposed GodsRed additions are mine.Actualy to understand the flow of thought which Paul was getting acrossed, it should actualy go this way:

Because that, when they knew God in theire private thoughts, they actualy must admit there is a God, but they chose from their own volition to ingnore Him and follow after the lusts of their flesh. they glorified him not as God by disobeying their conscience which they were expected to follow, neither were thankful by ignoring the grace of God; but became foolish in their reasoning from discounting God from their thoughts, and their foolish heart was obscured in darkness so that they would actualy think thay know better than God whom they ignore, and therefore becoming stupid...ect...

The black additions are mine.

Back2Front
Nov 15th 2008, 04:23 AM
NOW WE ARE GETTING SOME WHERE!

Bless you brother.

Blue additions are mine


Actualy to understand the flow of thought which Paul was getting acrossed, it should actualy go this way:

Because that, when they knew God in their private thoughts, they actualy must admit there is a God and a law he is serious about us obeying, but they chose from their own volition to ingnore Him by ignoring his law or just outright disobeying it and follow after the lusts of their flesh instead of following the law as the spirit convicts them. they glorified him not as God by disobeying their conscience which they were expected to follow by reading and following the Torah as the Spirit convicted their conscience, neither were thankful by ignoring the grace of God as well as his unchanging written law (spirit and flesh); but became foolish in their reasoning to throw away the law from discounting God from their thoughts by discounting his law from their thoughts, life, and ways of living, and their foolish heart was obscured in darkness living under the law of self so that they would actualy think thay know better than God whom they ignore by ignoring his law, and therefore becoming stupid...ect... cursed and damned to hell and kicked out of the land turned over to their enemies.

The black additions are mine.

EvangMike
Nov 15th 2008, 07:16 AM
I would like to add a thought or two here. It seems that too much is being read into this text.

Let me take it piece by piece (KJV):

"Because that, when they knew God" - It does not say they knew the Torah. From the verse before (20) it identifies this knowledge as being about His Godhead and His power - which they understood from creation.

This means they had a correct understanding about God in the way that the Creation revealed it. This is the knowledge that God has also put in the heart of every man (vs. 19).

It does not say that they were deceived, either - they did it willingly.

"they glorified him not as God" - Even though their conscience taught them better, they seared it and did not serve or worship God as they knew they should.

"neither were thankful" - they knew where all things came from but did not choose to recognize God for it.

"but became vain in their imaginations" - A refusal to believe and act on the truth always leads one into error. An imagination not restrained by the Holy Spirit becomes an unfathomably wicked one - like those in the days of Noah - "...and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Ge. 6:5).

"and their foolish heart was darkened." - The light (truth) could no longer shine into their hearts because they turned away from the Source of the Light - God.

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." (Jn. 3:20).

The acts recorded in this verse led to their errors in the next verses:

1. They thought they had become wise (vs. 22)
2. They tampered with the highest knowledge - what they knew about God (vs. 23).

After talking about the Jews a little bit, Paul then concludes his argument about why all are condemned. He says in Ro. 2:14,15: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

Back2Front
Nov 15th 2008, 08:01 AM
I would like to add a thought or two here. It seems that too much is being read into this text.

Or not enough. I suppose it depends on how you grew and who you were taught by.


"Because that, when they knew God" - It does not say they knew the Torah.

To know God and his personality is to know the Torah. That is Jew believer 101.


From the verse before (20) it identifies this knowledge as being about His Godhead and His power - which they understood from creation.

No they understood from the Torah and the law written on their hearts. And from God speaking to them first hand.


This means they had a correct understanding about God in the way that the Creation revealed it. This is the knowledge that God has also put in the heart of every man (vs. 19).

We are the creation. We understood God as we looked at ourselves? That doesn't sound like very good theology. God spoke directly to these people and revealed himself himself. Also he wrote a book. I'm just saying don't ignore that, and you're not going to convince me about some nature theory either because that is in direct contradiction to his word.


It does not say that they were deceived, either - they did it willingly.

Agreed. As is still done today.


"they glorified him not as God" - Even though their conscience taught them better, they seared it and did not serve or worship God as they knew they should.

And as they knew from scripture which backed up their conscience.


"neither were thankful" - they knew where all things came from but did not choose to recognize God for it.

Yes they did they just wanted to do it their own way starting with Cane.


"but became vain in their imaginations" - A refusal to believe and act on the truth always leads one into error.

Error against what? Yes the law.


An imagination not restrained by the Holy Spirit becomes an unfathomably wicked one

and we know this by the measure against the law.


- like those in the days of Noah - "...and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Ge. 6:5).

Accept for Noah who knew the law as it was written on his heart and ingrained in his being as is with all of us. Also, God spoke to him directly which further blows away the nature creation suggestion.


"and their foolish heart was darkened." - The light (truth) could no longer shine into their hearts because they turned away from the Source of the Light - God.

through the law he took the time to spell out for them.

Below red additions are mine


"And this is the condemnation, that light in the form of Christ and his perfection of the law is come into the world, and men loved darkness and their own version of the law that suited them rather than light which is the living law and our example, because their deeds were evil as they did not want to follow the law or anybodies example of how to do so." (Jn. 3:20).

The acts recorded in this verse led to their errors in the next verses:

1. They thought they had become wise (vs. 22) and in that false wisdom thought they were enabled to rejecting the law which was the purpose of the false wisdom in the first place.
2. They tampered with the highest knowledge - what they knew about God (vs. 23). Through the law as their consciences were convicted.

After talking about the Jews a little bit, Paul then concludes his argument about why all are condemned. He says in Ro. 2:14,15: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the written law, do by nature the things contained in the law as it is written on their hearts, these, having not the written law, are a law unto themselves as they have no written backing not to mention the intended spirit therein with which they should approach the law: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another no differently than those who have the written as well, but lack the intended spirit with which to approach it."

Without the spirit the law is death, without the law the spirit is false and a deceiver.

Hope this all makes sense.

Back2Front
Nov 15th 2008, 08:15 AM
This form of dividing the word of truth is AWESOME!

It is clear where everyone is coming from and shows clearly where God has each one of us in our understandings.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't judge me or be angry with me. I am not with any of you.

Just_Another_Guy
Nov 15th 2008, 02:55 PM
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


If you believe in Total Depravity and you are a Calvinists how do you reconcile it with this verse?

I'm not a Calvinist..but I will say that Romans 3 as well as Isaiah 66 essentially point to man being in a condemned state since the fall, and allude to God himself being the only savior of men through faith in Christ Jesus. That doesn't mean that there aren't men who God doesn't consider righteous.

Enoch, Job, Abraham are among notable men whom were definitely considered righteous by God. Still, I think any doctrine that starts out with "man is inherently good" does go against a lot of what is taught in scripture. Remember, even Jesus himself stated "only God is good." He also proclaimed and attributed all of the good works that he had done to be coming from his Father, not himself.

Matthew

mikebr
Nov 15th 2008, 03:24 PM
Has anybody answered my question?

It seems that there has been alot of commentary added. Maybe I haven't had enough coffee.

David2
Nov 15th 2008, 03:51 PM
Mikebr
I can't see how Calvinist total depravity can be reconciled with this verse. It is clear from Scriptures that God did reveal Himself to all mankind through creation at least but also through the fact that God wrote certain principals in each persons heart (Rom.2:15). Depravity can therefore not be understood in such a way that unregenerate man is completely ignorant of God. Now, they do have the basic knowledge of God, enough at least to be able to make a choice and say "Yes!" when the true gospel is preached to them.

Diolectic
Nov 15th 2008, 03:55 PM
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

If you believe in Total Depravity and you are a Calvinists how do you reconcile it with this verse?I'm not a Calvinist, but I know what they think.

They would say that it don't matter if they know God or not.
Their "Total Depravity" would be that they so much will not care that they know God, all from their hatred of God, which makes them incapable of doing anything else but sinning in HIS face.

Hope I worded that well enogh to understand. I haven't finnished my coffee :) (seriously)

Just_Another_Guy
Nov 15th 2008, 03:58 PM
Has anybody answered my question?

It seems that there has been alot of commentary added. Maybe I haven't had enough coffee.


Lol..I think I tried to above. Here are some more verses from Romans that may help clarify.

Romans 8:20-24
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

I don't think scripture supports mankind being inherently good.(after the fall) We are in an imperfect state while on this earth, groaning for the redemption of this dead body. The spirit helps intercede for us as well as bring about this hope.

Perhaps the doctrine of total depravity does go a bit on the other extreme a bit, but I think it's accurate in pertaining to men not being the ultimate savior of themselves...and them needing God to intercede for their salvation. You may want to read the entirety of Romans 8. It really gives a lot of clarity on this issue.

Matthew

David2
Nov 15th 2008, 04:19 PM
I don't think scripture supports mankind being inherently good .... Perhaps the doctrine of total depravity does go a bit on the other extreme a bit, but I think it's accurate in pertaining to men not being the ultimate savior of themselves
That would be my position as well. Man can't save himself. He can't repent of his sins without the regenerating work of Christ. But he can say "Yes" when the gospel is being preached to him. "How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed ..." That means to me that a lost soul is not so dead in his sins that he could not call onto God in faith. Yet, he is also not so good that he can repent of his sins before regeneration.

Diolectic
Nov 15th 2008, 04:30 PM
Lol..I think I tried to above. Here are some more verses from Romans that may help clarify.

Romans 8:20-24
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

I don't think scripture supports mankind being inherently good.(after the fall) We are in an imperfect state while on this earth, groaning for the redemption of this dead body. The spirit helps intercede for us as well as bring about this hope.It would be an assumption to think this verse carries anything about the so called "fall of Adam"

Adam's sin only wounded himself, just as our own sins only wound ourselves.
Since Adam was restored after he sinned, but only unable to eat of the Tree of Life, one can not even suppose his sin effected his offspring.

Romans 8:20-21
This ''vanity''(temperaryness) along with the ''bondage of corruption'' is not because of Adam's sin and the curse of the ground that followed, but because of Him(God) who has subjected it in hope of the adoption, that is, the redemption of our bodies which is the glorious liberty of the children of God.
The flesh was never meant to be eternal.
If Adam had never sinned, he would have died a natural death if he never have eaten from the Tree of Life.
WE all die because the way to the Tree of Life is cut off so that we who know good and evil lest we put forth our hand, and have take also of the tree of life to eat and lived for ever(Gen 3:22)

Understand that which is made "with hands" is temporal, that which is "made without hands" is eternal.
Mark 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple (His body) that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
2Corinth 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle (body) were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Now, if Jesus had a Body wich is temporal (made with hands) as HE never sinned and not "totaly depraved", their is no reason to think that our body is temporal because of our sinfulness.

BroRog
Nov 15th 2008, 04:40 PM
To know God and his personality is to know the Torah. That is Jew believer 101.

I agree with Evangmike. You are reading too much into the text. And I agree with his reason; Paul is saying they should have known about God from creation. He says nothing about the scriptures.

BroRog
Nov 15th 2008, 04:52 PM
Has anybody answered my question?

It seems that there has been alot of commentary added. Maybe I haven't had enough coffee.

It might be helpful to know what impact this verse has on the doctrine from your perspective. Why do you think this verse is a problem for that view?

Back2Front
Nov 15th 2008, 07:01 PM
I guess my nutshell point is that when Paul or anyone in the NT refers to Scripture, they are not referring to the KJV or the NIV thus their own letters and writings as none of this was written yet.

When Paul went a Preachin, no matter who the people were, everything he did and said was backed up by the Torah and the Tanakh as a whole. This is what all people meant by 'the word of God' in the bible. Never once did any writer in the bible say 'the word of God' and meant what we know as the NT.

That said, we know that the Tanakh is sufficient in and of itself for spreading the good news about Christ. Also, so are all those shadowy, typy mcpointers, that showed us the future of the coming Christ and now show us the past of that Christ who came and is still here.

Then lastly, the conscience people, who acted from the law on their hearts, yet knew not the written, were proof of the law, and proof of the need for the Spirit of the law that is the Christ, and how he lived it. Also proving how those who knew the written, acted in the same way as those who didn't, thus further proving the need for and their lacking of the Spirit intended by God with which one is supposed to approach the law with.

Thats all.

EvangMike
Nov 15th 2008, 07:35 PM
I am more than a little surprised at some of things that are being said in this thread. I would like to answer a couple of things that need to be looked at according to Scripture - and I say them in love, not to be critical.


Dioclectic said:

It would be an assumption to think this verse carries anything about the so called "fall of Adam"

Adam's sin only wounded himself, just as our own sins only wound ourselves.
Since Adam was restored after he sinned, but only unable to eat of the Tree of Life, one can not even suppose his sin effected his offspring.To say that "Adam's sin only wounded himself" - is to clearly deny the Scriptures. Consider these verses that say his sins affected the whole human race:
Ro. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
RO. 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead...
Ro. 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation...
Ro. 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners...
Also, God said in one of the 10 Commandments that:
Ex 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Even though there is guilt that is passed from Adam to the rest of the human race - God says that in the same way the righteousness of Christ is available to all who believe. This is the meaning of the first and second Adam analogy in Scripture. The One can affect the rest - the first Adam affected others without choice - the second One (Christ) only by choice.

It is, however, not Adam's sin alone that condemns us, but our own sins are added to it as well. Each of us sin now because we are sinners by nature - and we will be judged accordingly.


Back2Front said:
To know God and his personality is to know the Torah. That is Jew believer 101.
I am not sure that we are talking about the same Torah. The only Torah is the 5 Books of Moses - Genesis through Deuteronomy. Since Paul is talking about Gentiles in the context - they did not have the Torah. In fact, the Torah was written somewhere around 1450BC.

The people that Paul is speaking about in Ro. 1:13-32, lived from the time of Adam's descendants until the time of Christ - but they were Gentiles. The Jews were not preaching to the Gentiles so how could they have known the Torah? Paul starts talking about the Jews in Chapter 2.


Back2Front said:
We are the creation. We understood God as we looked at ourselves? That doesn't sound like very good theology. God spoke directly to these people and revealed himself himself. Also he wrote a book. I'm just saying don't ignore that, and you're not going to convince me about some nature theory either because that is in direct contradiction to his word.
Where does the Bible say that only man is creation? Everything we see is creation - man, the earth, the solar system, the stars, etc.

I think you need to read Ro 1:19,20 again, and then read Ps. 19:1-4. Man is fallen and does not reflect God as he did before the Fall. God used something that man could not easily tamper with to convey a temporary message - the stars. (By the way - the message is distorted greatly now - but His infallible Word remains today.)
Ps. 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Where in the Bible does it say that He regularly talked with more than just a handful of people? - let alone everyone on earth?

That's all for now.

God Bless.

Yukerboy
Nov 15th 2008, 07:37 PM
It's not whether they know God, but if God knows them.

Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Men who suppress the truth by their wickedness knew God. However, God does not know them.

As for total depravity...

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked.

Some (Arminians) say it is like a ship passing by a drowning man. The captain (God) throws out a life preserver (salvation) and all the drowning man has to do is reach out and grab it (accept the gift).

Others (Calvinists) say it is like a ship passing a drowned man. The Captain (God) pulls the dead man out of the water (drags him to Christ, John 6:44), brings him back to life (salvation), and the dead man had no choice but to have life breathed back into him (forced to accept the gift).

John 5:21 the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

Back2Front
Nov 15th 2008, 07:55 PM
I am not sure that we are talking about the same Torah. The only Torah is the 5 Books of Moses - Genesis through Deuteronomy.

I understand that the Torah was even before it was written. All of Gods covenants were and still are.


Since Paul is talking about Gentiles in the context - they did not have the Torah. In fact, the Torah was written somewhere around 1450BC.

But was written on their hearts yet had not the Spirit like those jews who imposed through it instead of loved through it.


The people that Paul is speaking about in Ro. 1:13-32, lived from the time of Adam's descendants until the time of Christ - but they were Gentiles. The Jews were not preaching to the Gentiles so how could they have known the Torah? Paul starts talking about the Jews in Chapter 2.

Because Paul was there to give it and explain it to them through Christ and his Spirit.


Where does the Bible say that only man is creation? Everything we see is creation - man, the earth, the solar system, the stars, etc.

So a rock was created for the bird to enjoy? The bush was created for the mountain to enjoy? Creation is only relative to man and his perspective of it. Every man inherantly knows he is created. Thus, looking at creation is always to look at ones self. Man is the only relevant creation. Christ didn't come to save the leopards or the stars from an ultimate self destruction.


I think you need to read Ro 1:19,20 again, and then read Ps. 19:1-4. Man is fallen and does not reflect God as he did before the Fall. God used something that man could not easily tamper with to convey a temporary message - the stars. (By the way - the message is distorted greatly now - but His infallible Word remains today.)
Ps. 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Where in the Bible does it say that He regularly talked with more than just a handful of people? - let alone everyone on earth?

This is how star and sun worshipers came about. God charged his people to go into the world and give those the truth. They did so with Torah in hand. ehhem, not a KJV.

mikebr
Nov 16th 2008, 12:49 AM
It might be helpful to know what impact this verse has on the doctrine from your perspective. Why do you think this verse is a problem for that view?

Total Depravity says that man cannot know God unless God makes himself known to that person. At this point God starts the process of irresistable grace and this person is one of the Elect chose before the foundations of the world. The elect will be conformed to Christs image and will persevere till the end.

It seems the people in Romans knew God, therefore God must have made himself known. This passage would seem to deny irresistable grace or perseverence or both.

Or it denys the concept of total depravity?:hmm:

I am neither calvinist nor arminian.

RogerW
Nov 16th 2008, 01:05 AM
Total Depravity says that man cannot know God unless God makes himself known to that person. At this point God starts the process of irresistable grace and this person is one of the Elect chose before the foundations of the world. The elect will be conformed to Christs image and will persevere till the end.

It seems the people in Romans knew God, therefore God must have made himself known. This passage would seem to deny irresistable grace or perseverence or both.

Or it denys the concept of total depravity?:hmm:

I am neither calvinist nor arminian.

Hi Mike,

The passage says every man has knowledge of God, and this through His natural creation. This knowledge is given to every man born in Adam, or of the flesh. What the passage does not say is that every man has knowledge of the Son of God. Without knowing the Son, no man can be saved. The knowledge of God including His power and divinity comes naturally through creation, the conscience, and even history. But the knowledge of the Son unto salvation is not through natural revelation, but supernatural revelation through the power of the Word and the Holy Spirit.

Many Blessings,
RW

mikebr
Nov 16th 2008, 01:10 AM
Hi Mike,

The passage says every man has knowledge of God, and this through His natural creation. This knowledge is given to every man born in Adam, or of the flesh. What the passage does not say is that every man has knowledge of the Son of God. Without knowing the Son, no man can be saved. The knowledge of God including His power and divinity comes naturally through creation, the conscience, and even history. But the knowledge of the Son unto salvation is not through natural revelation, but supernatural revelation through the power of the Word and the Holy Spirit.

Many Blessings,
RW

How were pre-Christ people saved?

If it says as you say it does then it denies Total Depravity if I understand it correctly. Maybe I misunderstand what total depravity is?

RogerW
Nov 16th 2008, 01:22 AM
How were pre-Christ people saved?

If it says as you say it does then it denies Total Depravity if I understand it correctly. Maybe I misunderstand what total depravity is?

Man were saved before the cross the same way we are saved; by grace through faith. They looking forward to fulfillment of the promised Messiah coming to redeem them, and we looking back to the accomplishment on the cross. This is why Scripture tells us that Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

The doctrine of total inability [depravity] teaches that people are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, as he requires, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. Even religion and philanthropy are destructive to the extent that these originate from a human imagination, passions, and will.

Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as bad as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. Although total depravity is easily confused with philosophical cynicism, the doctrine teaches optimism concerning God's love for what he has made and God's ability to accomplish the ultimate good that he intends for his creation. Theopedia

Many Blessings,
RW

mikebr
Nov 16th 2008, 01:25 AM
Man were saved before the cross the same way we are saved; by grace through faith. They looking forward to fulfillment of the promised Messiah coming to redeem them, and we looking back to the accomplishment on the cross. This is why Scripture tells us that Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

The doctrine of total inability [depravity] teaches that people are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, as he requires, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. Even religion and philanthropy are destructive to the extent that these originate from a human imagination, passions, and will.

Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as bad as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. Although total depravity is easily confused with philosophical cynicism, the doctrine teaches optimism concerning God's love for what he has made and God's ability to accomplish the ultimate good that he intends for his creation. Theopedia

Many Blessings,
RW

Thanks this is quite a different defintion than I have heard before. I've learned something.:o

BroRog
Nov 16th 2008, 01:33 AM
Total Depravity says that man cannot know God unless God makes himself known to that person. At this point God starts the process of irresistable grace and this person is one of the Elect chose before the foundations of the world. The elect will be conformed to Christs image and will persevere till the end.

It seems the people in Romans knew God, therefore God must have made himself known. This passage would seem to deny irresistable grace or perseverence or both.

Or it denys the concept of total depravity?:hmm:

I am neither calvinist nor arminian.

As I understand the doctrine of Total Depravity, your verse wouldn't answer the question either way. Both Calvinists and Arminians teach that man is incapable of coming to saving faith without the prior help of the Holy Spirit. The difference between them is that while Arminians assert the doctrine of prevenient grace, Calvinists assert the doctrine of irresistible grace. That is, Arminians believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, has brought everyone to the point at which he or she can make a free will choice to respond to God's offer of salvation in repentance and acceptance; Calvinists, by contrast, affirm that God only opens the eyes of the elect, and that regeneration must come first before a man or woman can respond in faith to God's offer, and that this regeneration does not take place in all people. The idea that some are not able to respond without the requisite process of regeneration, is the essence of Total depravity. Mankind is not otherwise able to respond to God's overture of grace.

In this debate, knowledge of God's existence is not the issue. Rather, both Calvinists and Arminians (as opposed to Pelagians) affirm that mankind has a moral issue with belief in God, which is an aspect of our moral nature. We have a privation of the will, and that infirmaty naturally leads us to rebuff God's overtures toward us as we repudiate any attempt on his part to make a move toward reconciliation. It isn't that we don't know about God. We know about him, but refuse to acknowledge him. We purposely and willfully ignore him. And until that moral problem is fixed, we will continue to chide against him.

Now, when you say that you are neither a Calvinist or an Arminian, I assume, perhaps wrongly, that you are not a Pelagian. Is that right?

I honestly and sincerely wish Pelagius was right about our freedom of the will (not his ideas about the cross.) But I just can't make sense of the New Testament if man's will was totally free of moral impairment due to our nature. I hate to think that my evil actions are deterministic, the result of a broken nature, but I can't make sense of Paul's arguments in Romans particularly in which he wishes to be free of a part of himself. What else could it mean to be freed from "the law of my members" if it wasn't true that my nature was part of the problem of my impared will?

Yukerboy
Nov 16th 2008, 01:40 AM
As I said before in a post that seemed to have disappeared....

"the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" - Romans 5 something

That would pretty much sum it up for me. Because Adam sinned, all men are condemned. Why are all men condemned? For the wages of sin is death.

"through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners" - Romans 5 something

Ditto above. We were made sinners because of the disobedience of one man.

These quotes, along with David's writings in Psalms are as clear as day.

mikebr
Nov 16th 2008, 01:41 AM
No I'm not a Pelagian either, although I'm not sure about total depravity.

I can't agree with the Calvinist on the idea of double predestination because it teaches that God could save everyone but He refuses to. A mean God.

I can't agree with the Arminian because it puts man's will above God's. Man can have what he wants but God can't. It teaches that God wants to save everyone but can't. A weak God.

legoman
Nov 16th 2008, 01:42 AM
If I may add something on this "doctrine of total inability" that Roger and others are talking about - I believe these verses from Romans 8 sum it up:

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Read all of Romans 8 for more info.

I think the idea is we are carnal by nature, and our carnal nature can only do the things of the flesh, and not turn to God until God enables us to do so.

Our flesh must die (metaphorically and eventually literally) so we can live in the spirit.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

etc.

Just read all of Romans 8 a couple dozen times and it will make sense :)

Now I'm not sure if this has anything to do with your original question - I am not a calvinist either, but I do believe no one can come to Christ in there fleshly carnal ways until God reveals himself to them and then God enables them (see John 6:44, John 6:65, etc).

mikebr
Nov 16th 2008, 01:46 AM
As I said before in a post that seemed to have disappeared....

"the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" - Romans 5 something

That would pretty much sum it up for me. Because Adam sinned, all men are condemned. Why are all men condemned? For the wages of sin is death.

"through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners" - Romans 5 something

Ditto above. We were made sinners because of the disobedience of one man.

These quotes, along with David's writings in Psalms are as clear as day.


Rom 5:15-21
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

mikebr
Nov 16th 2008, 01:51 AM
By Legoman


Now I'm not sure if this has anything to do with your original question - I am not a calvinist either, but I do believe no one can come to Christ in there fleshly carnal ways until God reveals himself to them and then God enables them (see John 6:44, John 6:65, etc).


GK Chesterton said that no man had ever walked into a brothel that was not looking for God. I believe that God is seeking all men and has put eternity in their hearts.

legoman
Nov 16th 2008, 01:59 AM
GK Chesterton said that no man had ever walked into a brothel that was not looking for God. I believe that God is seeking all men and has put eternity in their hearts.

Hi mike,

These verses are very relevant:

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.

You are correct, God is seeking us. We are the lost sheep - we don't even know we are lost sometimes. God will find all his sheep. Not sure about the GK Chesterton comment though...

Cheers,
Legoman

Yukerboy
Nov 16th 2008, 02:28 AM
MikeBR, thank you for finding the scripture...

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

All Christians were made (had no choice but to be) sinners by Adam's disobedience. All Christians were made (had no choice but to be) righteous by Christ's obedience.

Yuke

Diolectic
Nov 16th 2008, 02:45 AM
I am more than a little surprised at some of things that are being said in this thread. I would like to answer a couple of things that need to be looked at according to Scripture - and I say them in love, not to be critical.
Dioclectic said:
It would be an assumption to think this verse carries anything about the so called "fall of Adam"

Adam's sin only wounded himself, just as our own sins only wound ourselves.
Since Adam was restored after he sinned, but only unable to eat of the Tree of Life, one can not even suppose his sin effected his offspring.
To say that "Adam's sin only wounded himself" - is to clearly deny the Scriptures. Consider these verses that say his sins affected the whole human race:

Ro. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
RO. 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead...
Ro. 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation...
Ro. 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners...
Romans 5:12 Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed through into all mankind, on which all sinned -
Just as the first transgression was introduced into the world by Adam...
...so [physical] death came into the world through [that] sin...
...and so [physical] death spread to all men because all sinned (so far, and mankind will continue to sin from then on)
Let’s break it down:
as by one man, sin entered into the world Just that, the first transgression was introduced into the world by Adam.

and through sin, death
through that particular sin, physical death came by being severed from the Tree of Life

so also [physical] death passed to all men
physical death passed to all because the way to the tree of life was cut off and also because we are all subject to temporariness and are under the bondage of corruption.(Rom 8:20-23)

God subjected creation to these in hope for the glorious liberation of the children of God waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our body(Rom 8:20-23)
Flesh was never supposed to be eternal
Even if Adam had never sinned, he would not have lived forever, even if he would not have eaten from the Tree of Life.

upon all whom have sinned
but not to the extent that in the future all sinned already.
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Lets follow the analogy:
as by
even so by
1.
by the offence
by the righteousness

2.
of one
of one

3.
judgment came
the free gift came

4.
upon all men
upon all men

5.
to condemnation
unto justification of life

Therefore, in whatever way that judgment cam upon all men, so also justification came upon all men.
If Justification is not forced upon all men, then is condemnation not forced upon all men.
However, both have come upon all men: condemnation through Adam, and justification through Jesus.
It is the individuals choices that determine whether they are condemned or justified.
If you live in sin, which all men will choose to do starting with Adam, you will be condemned.
If you live in God, which some men will choose to do by Jesus, you will be justified.
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
notice the word ''as by'' & "so by"
This is a comparison of the two.
I put brackets to for better understanding;

Just as through the one mans disobedience, [in like manner of disobedience] the many were zmade sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, [in like manner of obedience] so shall the many be made righteous.

It must be this way, otherwise you get universal salvation.
If the many were made sinners involuntarily without choice, the many must be made righteous involuntarily without choice/

Also, God said in one of the 10 Commandments that:

Ex 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Even though there is guilt that is passed from Adam to the rest of the human race - God says that in the same way the righteousness of Christ is available to all who believe. This is the meaning of the first and second Adam analogy in Scripture. The One can affect the rest - the first Adam affected others without choice - the second One (Christ) only by choice. First of all, the gulit is not passed, but the "consequence of the sins of the fathers" was passed down.
Guilt is imposible to pass down, for that would be injustice.
No one can be guilty for anothers crime.
The consequence of Adam's sin was the way to the Tree of Life being cut off; so physical death passed to all unto all that have sinned.


It is, however, not Adam's sin alone that condemns us, but our own sins are added to it as well. Each of us sin now because we are sinners by nature - and we will be judged accordingly.Adam's sin can not condemn anyone but himself, just as your dad's sin can not condemn you.

Yukerboy
Nov 16th 2008, 04:54 PM
Adam's sin can not condemn anyone but himself, just as your dad's sin can not condemn you.

Paul as clearly as he could say it said "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men"

I mean, to try to break it down anymore than that would be almost impossible.

What did Adam do? He sinned.
What was the result of Adam's sin? Condemnation for all men.

I just don't know how else to put it.

I guess some will say, that isn't fair. Fine, but what God says is fair and what you say is fair are two totally different things.

Was it fair God let Satan kill Job's family for being a just and perfect man? In my eyes, no, but in God's eyes, yes.

Was it fair for the Israelites to go in an kill every male child of the Midanites? In my eyes, no, but in God's eyes, yes.

Yuke

Back2Front
Nov 16th 2008, 05:47 PM
This is a very good point.


I guess some will say, that isn't fair. Fine, but what God says is fair and what you say is fair are two totally different things.

I believe that Satan believes he was and is being treated unfairly. I know this because he often tries to convince me of the same.

I believe that Satan tries eliminate Gods right and authority to judge through taking judgement upon himself, even of himself. I know this because he often tries to convince me to do the same.

Satan has created sympathy as a counterfeit to mercy, forgiveness, and grace, as none of these are any longer available to him.

I know that God is infinitely ahead of Satan, but really only needs to be one step, as that prudence is all that is necessary.

Diolectic
Nov 16th 2008, 09:04 PM
Paul as clearly as he could say it said "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men"Did you actualy read my last post?


I mean, to try to break it down anymore than that would be almost impossible.See my post. It is Possible.


What did Adam do? He sinned.
What was the result of Adam's sin? Condemnation for all men.Read it in context.
Notice the words "as in" & "so also" or the other comparitive words which your translation uses.
This means Paul is comparing the two.


I just don't know how else to put it.Put it as in whatever way that judgment cam upon all men, so also justification came upon all men.(Romans 5:18)

Justification came upon all men not by involentary appointment of by force, one must choose to repent and to have faith.
Therefore Condemnation can not be involentarily of by forceed upon all men.

One needs to actualy choose to sin, disobey, rebel...ect... before one is condemned; just as one needs to actualy choose to acknowlege Christ and what he said & done to be made rightous.


I guess some will say, that isn't fair. Fine, but what God says is fair and what you say is fair are two totally different things.It ain't about fairness, but justice.
You are actualy saying that God can seem unjust because "He has another definition for justice than we do".
Don't be rediclous.
This is a very big reason why people hate God, because people with your theology demonizes God.
You give a horrible picture of God to the lost and expect them to come to a sadistic tyrant.


Was it fair God let Satan kill Job's family for being a just and perfect man?What are you talking about?
WHo sais it isn't fair for any man who is in this world to have tribulation?
If your in this world, you will have tribulation, why would Job be any diferent?
John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me you might have peace. In the world you will have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.


In my eyes, no, but in God's eyes, yes.If Job having tribulation was not fair to you, I would sugjest you understand the world in which we live in alittle more.


Was it fair for the Israelites to go in an kill every male child of the Midanites? In my eyes, no, but in God's eyes, yes.Yes, it was their judgment, which they brought upon themselves because they caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD(Numbers 31:16-17)

Yukerboy
Nov 17th 2008, 04:49 PM
Notice the words "as in" & "so also" or the other comparitive words which your translation uses.
This means Paul is comparing the two.

Of course he is comparing the two. Just as Adam's sin made all Christians sinners, Christ makes all Christians righteous.


Therefore Condemnation can not be involentarily of by forceed upon all men.

One needs to actualy choose to sin, disobey, rebel...ect... before one is condemned; just as one needs to actualy choose to acknowlege Christ and what he said & done to be made rightous.

just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men...

All men are condemned as a result of one trespass. Not because they themselves chose to sin, but because one trespass resulted in condemnation for all men. To say it is possible for any man to choose to live a life with nary a sin is to make Paul a liar when he states all have sinned. It is impossible not to have sinned.


You are actualy saying that God can seem unjust because "He has another definition for justice than we do".

That is exactly what I am saying.

Again, I ask you was it fair God let Satan kill Job's family for being a just and perfect man?

What did Job do to deserve his family being killed? I believe that was unfair, but then God knows fairness better than I do.


Yes, it was their judgment, which they brought upon themselves because they caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD

So the 1 year old baby child of the Midianites did all this to the Israelites?

I'm glad you see the fairness of that. I do not, but I take God's Word that it was fair, though I won't understand why until I meet him.

John146
Nov 17th 2008, 05:32 PM
Mikebr
I can't see how Calvinist total depravity can be reconciled with this verse. It is clear from Scriptures that God did reveal Himself to all mankind through creation at least but also through the fact that God wrote certain principals in each persons heart (Rom.2:15). Depravity can therefore not be understood in such a way that unregenerate man is completely ignorant of God. Now, they do have the basic knowledge of God, enough at least to be able to make a choice and say "Yes!" when the true gospel is preached to them.Exactly. The Calvinist view of total depravity is simply unbiblical. It says that since man is spiritually dead then he must not have any ability to make moral decisions. Romans 1 clearly says otherwise and puts all of the responsibility for not believing on man. The Calvinist view actually puts the responsibility on God Himself because they say He does not give some any ability to believe.

But no one has any excuse for not believing. And this extends beyond just belief in the existence of God. It says "that which may be known of God is manifest in them...even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse". So, people have no excuse, not only to not believe in the existence of God, but also no excuse for not believing in God for who He is by not being thankful to Him or glorifying Him. Therefore, it is clearly one's willful choice to not be thankful to God or to glorify Him. The Calvinist doctrine of total depravity would try to suggest that unbelievers have no capacity to know who God is in order to be thankful to Him and glorify Him. That is clearly a false teaching.

People also have no excuse for not believing the gospel. It is "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom 1:16). God has made the gospel of Christ known to the world just as He made Himself known by what He made. The Calvinist view would try to suggest that the ones who don't believe the gospel weren't given saving faith in order to believe it. But saving faith is not given. Each person is required to make the choice to believe or not.

If someone does not believe in Christ then there is no excuse for that. The Calvinist view provides an excuse by suggesting that God does not give saving faith to those people while giving it only to the relative few who are chosen. This takes the responsibility to put one's faith and trust in Christ away. This ends up in people being condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18) despite supposedly never being given the ability to believe in Him. How could that possibly be fair? But God is fair and impartial, so that means the responsibility and accountablity for not believing in Christ falls squarely on the individual who willingly chose to reject Him.

John146
Nov 17th 2008, 05:38 PM
That is exactly what I am saying.

Again, I ask you was it fair God let Satan kill Job's family for being a just and perfect man?

What did Job do to deserve his family being killed? I believe that was unfair, but then God knows fairness better than I do.What happened to Job was temporary. We are talking about the difference between eternal life and eternal punishment here. Do you believe that God chose for most people (few are saved - Matt 7:13-14) to not have any ability or chance to believe in Christ and be saved? If so, tell me how that is fair. Scripture says that God is impartial. Tell me how withholding the chance to be saved from most people was the act of an impartial God. Again, we're talking about eternal destinies here, not temporary physical suffering. What happened with Job is not a good example because that has nothing to do with God not giving someone any chance to be saved.

Diolectic
Nov 17th 2008, 05:40 PM
Notice the words "as in" & "so also" or the other comparitive words which your translation uses.
This means Paul is comparing the two.Of course he is comparing the two. Just as Adam's sin made all Christians sinners, Christ makes all Christians righteous.Where do you get that Paul intendes the word "many" to mean "all Christains"
That doesn't even keep with the context of the previous chapters.

The context of Romans up to this point is Justification of the world by/through faith.
You can not change the focuse of this chapter to only Christians.



Therefore Condemnation can not be involentarily of by forceed upon all men.

One needs to actualy choose to sin, disobey, rebel...ect... before one is condemned; just as one needs to actualy choose to acknowlege Christ and what he said & done to be made rightousjust as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men...

All men are condemned as a result of one trespass. Not because they themselves chose to sin, but because one trespass resulted in condemnation for all men.If one did not choose to sin, he is exempt from guilt.
Guilt can only be charged to if the crime is by choice.

Your way turns out to be universal salvation.
You must not have read or understood this:
In whatever way that judgment cam upon all men, so also justification came upon all men.
If Justification is not forced upon all men, then is condemnation not forced upon all men.
However, both have come upon all men: condemnation through Adam, and justification through Jesus.
It is the individuals choices that determine whether they are condemned or justified.
If you choose to live in sin, which all men have chosen to do starting with Adam, you will be condemned.
If you live in God, which some men will choose to do by Jesus, you will be justified.

How do you get around this?


To say it is possible for any man to choose to live a life with nary a sin is to make Paul a liar when he states all have sinned. It is impossible not to have sinned.No, it don't make Paul a liar, because all men have chose to sin.
If no one chooses to sin, it can't be called sin.
Sin is only by choice.
If it is imposible to choose to live a life with out sin, then God would be unjust to charge mankind guilty.
Standards must be attainable.
One can not be guilty for that which is unavoidable.
Like having a law which breathing is a crime.
Breathing is unavoidable.
The law against breathing is unjust.

Therefore, choice must be involved in guilt.



You are actualy saying that God can seem unjust because "He has another definition for justice than we do".That is exactly what I am saying.Then God is incapable of communion with us.


Again, I ask you was it fair God let Satan kill Job's family for being a just and perfect man?

What did Job do to deserve his family being killed? I believe that was unfair, but then God knows fairness better than I do.It's not about what Job did to deserve anything.
It's about where he lives, which is in this world.
Did you actualy read my last post?
If so, please comment or rebut, point by point.
Because Iv'e covered this already.



Yes, it was their judgment, which they brought upon themselves because they caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORDSo the 1 year old baby child of the Midianites did all this to the Israelites?The babies are not guilty, but suffer the concequences of their parents sin.
The 1 year old baby child goes to be with the Lord with out guilt, and the Patrents who were judged will answer to the charges.

It aint about what the 1 year old baby child did or does, it is where the 1 year old baby child lives.


I'm glad you see the fairness of that. I do not, but I take God's Word that it was fair, though I won't understand why until I meet him.Quit calling it fairness, call it what it is, Justice.
Job and the year old baby child are inocent, but live in a place with tribulation.
Job and the year old baby child will get justice (not being charged with the guilt of any other sin but their own) and the guilty will also have justice (not being charged with the guilt of any other sin but their own)

Again, please comment or rebut, point by point so I know you read and undertand the points which I already made, which you seem to have ignored.

Yukerboy
Nov 17th 2008, 05:48 PM
Where do you get that Paul intendes the word "many" to mean "all Christains"
That doesn't even keep with the context of the previous chapters.

Because if the word many was meant to mean all people, then we have universalism. Christ only makes Christians righteous.


If one did not choose to sin, he is exempt from guilt.
Guilt can only be charged to if the crime is by choice.


And that will be found where in the Bible? All will sin. They have to. There is no choice but to sin. Guilt can be charged by God no matter what the circumstances.


The babies are not guilty, but suffer the concequences of their parents sin.

WOW!!!!!!!! I think you got it! And was it fair for the 1 year old to suffer the consequences of their parents' sin? Think of Paul's Adam's sin resulting in condemnation for all model.

Yuke

Just_Another_Guy
Nov 17th 2008, 05:59 PM
You know what's interesting is that Jacob actually wrestled with God and commanded him to bless him. Thus I guess one could kind of say Jacob made the choice to save himself in this scenario..:lol:

I don't think that an individual has the ability to extend salvation to himself, and then ascend into the clouds and be with God. This is solely an ability of God. Thus one could say that the righteous choices one makes, can have an impact on whether or not God will extend salvation to them...but still does not enable man to offer himself salvation.

Not directed to anyone in particular, but we all must be careful not to get too caught up in semantics and wording, and condemn people's testimony automatically as false because something isn't phrased exactly in the way we understand it or how we've been accustomed to hearing it. People may be on the same page at times, but you'll often times have to get through several posts in order to understand where one is coming from....

Now I'm not saying we should always be willing compromise our testimony..let God be right and everyman a liar is what I say. But in the end, there are some things which one has to look at and say...why bother arguing over a word or two.

mikebr
Nov 17th 2008, 06:27 PM
[quote=Yukerboy;1870818]Because if the word many was meant to mean all people, then we have universalism. Christ only makes Christians righteous.[quote]




So just because it says something that you don't think is could say then it means something other than what it says.

I see this as being too common. If it says something that we don't think it could say then we add to it to make it say what we want it to say.

I thought you weren't supposed to add to or take away from scripture.:hmm:

See who the first many were and it will tell you who the second many are.

Friend of I AM
Nov 17th 2008, 06:40 PM
MikeBR, thank you for finding the scripture...

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

All Christians were made (had no choice but to be) sinners by Adam's disobedience. All Christians were made (had no choice but to be) righteous by Christ's obedience.

Yuke

This doesn't mean that obedience doesn't play a role in salvation. I would say that obedience is an example of one being saved. Does that mean that one won't falter at times in their walk? Of course not. But we should be striving towards perfection in our walks. So yes men were condemned because of Adam -- but they still have a choice on whether or not they can "accept" or "reject" the gift that's given to them. Obviously men don't offer themselves salvation, but they still can say "no" to it.

Friend of I AM
Nov 17th 2008, 06:52 PM
If someone does not believe in Christ then there is no excuse for that. The Calvinist view provides an excuse by suggesting that God does not give saving faith to those people while giving it only to the relative few who are chosen. This takes the responsibility to put one's faith and trust in Christ away. This ends up in people being condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18) despite supposedly never being given the ability to believe in Him. How could that possibly be fair? But God is fair and impartial, so that means the responsibility and accountablity for not believing in Christ falls squarely on the individual who willingly chose to reject Him.

There are many excuses that people have in their lives for not adhering to a certain man made doctrine. Sometimes it's out of ignorance, sometimes it's out of anger and various social situations one has been through within their life. It's a heart issue, as much as it is a confession of one's faith. A Gentile who may not know the Christian doctrine may demonstrate that they have the love of Christ written within their heart based on their words and actions, while someone who professes their great faith in Christ and has much knowledge of Christian doctrine may not by their words and actions.

Diolectic
Nov 17th 2008, 07:38 PM
Where do you get that Paul intends the word "many" to mean "all Christians"
That doesn't even keep with the context of the previous chapters.Because if the word many was meant to mean all people, then we have universalism. Christ only makes Christians righteous.Christians are already righteous.
However, I do agree about the universalism thing, that is why one must understand it as I've already shown.
Just as through the one mans disobedience, [in like manner of disobedience] the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, [in like manner of obedience] so shall the many be made righteous.
Christ only makes those who obey the command to repent (Act 17:30) by faith to be righteous.


If one did not choose to sin, he is exempt from guilt.


Guilt can only be charged to if the crime is by choice.And that will be found where in the Bible?By knowing what is Just is how one knows that.


All will sin. They have to. There is no choice but to sin.If one has to sin, tell me how they are guilty?
Why & how is there "no choice but to sin?"

Fact is, sinners choose not to sin every day.

Guilt must be by choice, just as sin is only by choice.


Guilt can be charged by God no matter what the circumstances.Tell me How God could charge guilt on the innocent?
If God may charge guilt to one who has not done a crime, how is that justifiable?

I have never committed the sin of homosexuality, God can not charge me guilty of it.
But you say that He can.
Tell me how?
You said, "no matter what the circumstances".
Tell me how?



The babies are not guilty, but suffer the consequences of their parents sin.WOW!!!!!!!! I think you got it! And was it fair for the 1 year old to suffer the consequences of their parents' sin? Yes, just as it is fair that I suffered from my parents divorce.

Just as the Christians suffered from the sin of making the Twin Towers fall, so it is fair for all innocent to suffer from another’s sin.

Your point of view must leave the context of, "what has one done to deserve the effects of someone else’s sin" to where one is to be effected of someone else’s sin.

mikebr
Nov 17th 2008, 08:57 PM
This doesn't mean that obedience doesn't play a role in salvation. I would say that obedience is an example of one being saved. Does that mean that one won't falter at times in their walk? Of course not. But we should be striving towards perfection in our walks. So yes men were condemned because of Adam -- but they still have a choice on whether or not they can "accept" or "reject" the gift that's given to them. Obviously men don't offer themselves salvation, but they still can say "no" to it.

The problem comes with definitions of obedience.

What would yours look like?

RogerW
Nov 17th 2008, 09:08 PM
MikeBR, thank you for finding the scripture...

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

All Christians were made (had no choice but to be) sinners by Adam's disobedience. All Christians were made (had no choice but to be) righteous by Christ's obedience.

Yuke

Thanks Yuke! That was always a difficult verse for me to grasp.

Many Blessings,
RW

Diolectic
Nov 17th 2008, 09:46 PM
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

All Christians were made (had no choice but to be) sinners by Adam's disobedience. All Christians were made (had no choice but to be) righteous by Christ's obedience.Thanks Yuke! That was always a difficult verse for me to grasp.

Many Blessings,
RWIf you think that is correct, you still haven't grasped it.

Did you concider what I wrote of that verse?
Just as through the one mans disobedience, [in like manner of disobedience] the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, [in like manner of obedience] so shall the many be made righteous.
Why would you reject it?

If anyone had no choice to be sinners, then sin would not have the same meaning as it realy does.
All sin is willing, volitional choice.
If not, there can be no accountability.

Example question:
Why did you sin?
Answer:
I couldn't help it, I had to, I had no choice in the matter.
Conclusion:
Not guilty!

John146
Nov 17th 2008, 09:55 PM
If you think that is correct, you still haven't grasped it.

Did you concider what I wrote of that verse?
Just as through the one mans disobedience, [in like manner of disobedience] the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, [in like manner of obedience] so shall the many be made righteous.
Why would you reject it?

If anyone had no choice to be sinners, then sin would not have the same meaning as it realy does.
All sin is willing, volitional choice.
If not, there can be no accountability.

Example question:
Why did you sin?
Answer:
I couldn't help it, I had to, I had no choice in the matter.
Conclusion:
Not guilty!Exactly. Being held accountable and being condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18) clearly implies that the person is condemned for willfully choosing to reject Christ. It just makes no sense whatsoever for someone to be damned for eternity because they didn't do something that they were supposedly never given the ability to do. That would be like being damned for not being able to lift a semi truck up over your head.

This is eternity we're talking about here. A loving, merciful, gracious and longsuffering God is going to condemn most people to eternity in the lake of fire for not believing in Christ when they supposedly had no ability to do so? Wouldn't that make God responsible for their condition since He didn't give them the ability to believe rather than them being responsible for making the willful choice to not believe in Christ? Sure it would. But that, of course, cannot be the case. God is not responsible for people not believing in His Son. People are solely responsible. Their blood is on their own heads for willfully rejecting the gospel of Christ.

Acts 18
5And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
6And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

Yukerboy
Nov 17th 2008, 10:49 PM
Example question:
Why did you sin?
Answer:
I couldn't help it, I had to, I had no choice in the matter.
Conclusion:
Not guilty!

That would seem logical to me. Yet, as Paul said some will ask "Why does God blame us? For who resists His will?"

If the case was as logical as you point out, then there would be no need for Paul to talk of God blaming us for not resisting His will....

You refuse to believe that God is fair and righteous and just when He condemns every man for the transgression of one. I would agree with you. It isn't fair or right or just in my eyes, but then we go back to what is fair to God and what is fair to me is not the same in every case.

Yuke

mikebr
Nov 17th 2008, 11:05 PM
That would seem logical to me. Yet, as Paul said some will ask "Why does God blame us? For who resists His will?"

If the case was as logical as you point out, then there would be no need for Paul to talk of God blaming us for not resisting His will....

You refuse to believe that God is fair and righteous and just when He condemns every man for the transgression of one. I would agree with you. It isn't fair or right or just in my eyes, but then we go back to what is fair to God and what is fair to me is not the same in every case.

Yuke

I would ask where your sense of fairness came from?

Yukerboy
Nov 17th 2008, 11:16 PM
LOL! Good question.

Upbringing? Innate? The Holy Spirit? I know it cannot be the latter, for there are things God has done that I consider unfair or unjust, yet I know God is a just God.....because the Bible tells me so.

Yuke

mikebr
Nov 17th 2008, 11:19 PM
LOL! Good question.

Upbringing? Innate? The Holy Spirit? I know it cannot be the latter, for there are things God has done that I consider unfair or unjust, yet I know God is a just God.....because the Bible tells me so.

Yuke

What has God done that's unfair? Is it personal or biblical?

Diolectic
Nov 17th 2008, 11:48 PM
Example question:
Why did you sin?
Answer:
I couldn't help it, I had to, I had no choice in the matter.
Conclusion:
Not guilty! That would seem logical to me. Yet, as Paul said some will ask "Why does God blame us? For who resists His will?"
19 You will say then unto me, Why does he yet find fault? For who has resisted his intention?
For who has resisted God's intention?

Pharaoh hardened his heart as he resisted God & denied HIS sovereignty.
If God's intention was to use us the hardiness of pharaoh's heart, who can resist His intention?
However, you Pharaoh was always able to repent & was expected to; same goes for all of creation.

Your responce is moot.


If the case was as logical as you point out, then there would be no need for Paul to talk of God blaming us for not resisting His will...There is still need for that, but it does not reply.
However, I'm not Questioning God, but your theology.

Explain how it is right for God to condemn for that which is unavoidable?
How is guilt charged when one is not responcible?


You refuse to believe that God is fair and righteous and just when He condemns every man for the transgression of one.Wrong.
I know that God is "fair" Just and righteous, however, your theology/doctrines show God to be a sadistic tyrant.


It isn't fair or right or just in my eyes, but then we go back to what is fair to God and what is fair to me is not the same in every case.Why do you sttle with a theology/doctrine that criminalizes God?

Yukerboy
Nov 18th 2008, 01:02 AM
What has God done that's unfair? Is it personal or biblical?


All biblical. Personally, God has been very gracious to me.

God told Satan to do whatever he wanted to Job except to harm Job, and then he even relents on that. Why? What did Job do to deserve that? That seems unjust to me, but not to God. Job did nothing to deserve his family being killed in my eyes. His family did nothing to deserve being killed in my eyes. Yet, if God is a just God, which I know He is, then it was fair and deserved.

Just as with the Midianite children. Not one of those children under the age of two even knew what an Israelite was, or God for that matter, yet they were killed. Babes taken out of the arms of mothers who watched their children be killed right before their own lives were taken. Was that fair? Was that justice? In God's eyes yes. In your eyes, maybe. In my eyes, no.


Pharaoh was always able to repent & was expected to; same goes for all of creation.


Show me where this is said.


Explain how it is right for God to condemn for that which is unavoidable?


I can't. That's what I've been saying. To God it is right, to me not so much. But I know God is right and I am wrong.


How is guilt charged when one is not responcible?


You are asking the wrong guy there too. Why did God choose me to be saved but not my uncle, or my father, or who knows who else? I don't know, but I know He did and I am thankful for that. I did not deserve salvation. God was UNFAIR in giving me salvation, yet He did it.


I know that God is "fair" Just and righteous, however, your theology/doctrines show God to be a sadistic tyrant.

My theology/doctrines show God to be fair, but that His ways our not our ways.

Besides, I am not the one who is trying to say killing children is fair and right.

mikebr
Nov 18th 2008, 01:26 AM
Job fully trusted God. It didn't seem unfair to him. Maybe he knew something about God that You don't. Maybe it just seems unfair. I've always thought it was kinda hard on Moses not to let him enter the promised land. But Moses got to be in God's presence the real promised land. He got to stand with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. Maybe those people, including Jobs family, thought that God was great for taking them out of this world.

I've got a friend who is very sick. His comment is always, "don't treaten me with death" Its only a treat if you don't believe God.

BroRog
Nov 18th 2008, 01:34 AM
If anyone had no choice to be sinners, then sin would not have the same meaning as it really does. All sin is willing, volitional choice. If not, there can be no accountability.

If, as you seem to suggest, our moral will is free and capable of choosing good without divine aide, then how do we account for the fact that, according to God's perspective on mankind, "every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually"? How is it, if mankind is morally neutral such that statistically we would expect a fraction of the human population to live sinless lives that "There is none righteous, not even one"? If choosing the good is a free volitional choice, how is it that Jesus was the only human being to ever live a sinless life?

If we attempt to preserve the free will of man in order to claim that man is in full control of his own destiny such that he is fully capable of accepting God's offer of salvation, how is it that we don't also affirm that man has a free will choice to avoid sin altogether?

Is salvation merely the forensic act of pardon, or does it also involve a change of nature? And if salvation involves a change of nature, what can it mean to become a "new creature" in Christ if it doesn't mean that the old creature was deficient in some way?

Diolectic
Nov 18th 2008, 06:00 PM
All biblical. Personally, God has been very gracious to me.

God told Satan to do whatever he wanted to Job except to harm Job, and then he even relents on that. Why? What did Job do to deserve that? That seems unjust to me, but not to God.
Why do you think that God is culpable for what satan is free to do?
Whatever satan does has no bearing on God's justice & fairness.

What is justice to you?
Why would you blame God for what Satan does?

Just because God frees Satan to live does not mean that God wants all that he does to happen.

Nor does it reflect to God's justice or "fairness" as you imply.

You are putting satan's account onto God, thinking that God does injustice or "unfairness", when God has nothing to do with it but giving free roam.

Have you ever considered a new view on things?
One that doesn't make God culpable for seemingly injustices?

Views like this spread to the lost people of this world & thry dispise God for what you are applying to God.

Job did nothing to deserve his family being killed in my eyes. His family did nothing to deserve being killed in my eyes.I agree, but God has nothing to do with Job, satan does.
God didn't want satan to do those things, he only freed satan to do such.

It's like a murderer, free to roam a prison, and blaming the warden for that man killing other prisoners.
This is ridiculous.

What do you think of those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, do you think that was "fair" or just? (Luke 13:4)
Do you blame God?


Yet, if God is a just God, which I know He is, then it was fair and deserved.
Why do you think that everything that happens, one must be deserving or not.
Why do you think that God is culpable?
When you go to a restaurant & and the cook burns your meal, was God unjust in your eyes?
What did you do to deserve the burnt meal?
According to you, God is unfair in your eyes for doing this.



Just as with the Midianite children. Not one of those children under the age of two even knew what an Israelite was, or God for that matter, yet they were killed. Babes taken out of the arms of mothers who watched their children be killed right before their own lives were taken. Was that fair? Was that justice?Were those innocent baby in a place that was free from death & destruction?
If not, why then was it not fair or just?
It would definitely be "unfair" or unjust if they were in a place without such and still received such.

I've told you before, it's about environment, were one is; not about justice, not about God being culpable.
Why don't you understand that?

In God's eyes yes. In your eyes, maybe. In my eyes, no.In your eyes, because, you are hard hearted to anyone attempting to speak to you, as I am.


Pharaoh was always able to repent & was expected to; same goes for all of creation.
Show me where this is said.It is a given.
The fact that God commanded Pharaoh to free His people, tells us that Pharaoh could have & should have.
All mankind us able to repent at any time.
If not, If there is no choice to repent, one must prove the culpability of having no choice




Explain how it is right for God to condemn for that which is unavoidable?I can't. That's what I've been saying. To God it is right, to me not so much. But I know God is right and I am wrong.

Have you ever considered the reason why you think it's wrong?
Have you ever considered that in your conclusions, you’re in error because of your theology?

& maybe, just maybe, God doesn't condemn people for that which is unavoidable, and you are in error for thinking so.



How is guilt charged when one is not responsible? You are asking the wrong guy there too. Why did God choose me to be saved but not my uncle, or my father, or who knows who else?
It is by the fact that you chose to acknowledge the truth & acted on it by your own volition.
It is by the fact that you chose to repent.
But, NO, you will not listen to this reasoning.
For this can't be true. Your conclusion can't be wrong.
Sorry, for the sarcasm.

I don't know, but I know He did and I am thankful for that. I did not deserve salvation. God was UNFAIR in giving me salvation, yet He did it.
I know why, but you refuse to listen to reason.
Why not let me explain.
Since we know God truly is fair, & He has the same standard of "fairness" as we do.
Maybe, you actually met the requirement that God set for salvation.
That way, God is not "unfair" for saving you.
But, NO, you will not listen to this reasoning.
For this can't be true. Your conclusion can't be wrong



I know that God is "fair" Just and righteous, however, your theology/doctrines show God to be a sadistic tyrant. My theology/doctrines show God to be fair, but that His ways our not our ways.
One problem is, you take that out of context.
Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
This is connected with the subject of sin and the pardon and forgiveness, This is also connected with the ways and thoughts of the wicked in contrast to God's.

It is not about God's ways & thoughts of justice & "fairness".

The context of what you quoted must be that the ways, plans, and purposes of God in regard to forgiveness are as far above those of people as the heavens are higher than the earth,

But, NO, you will not listen to this reasoning.
For this can't be true. Your interpretation can't be wrong.
I know you will continue on with your understanding & not listen to a single word in this post.

At least that is how things usually go.
I hope you will surprise me and actually listen and ask how and why I say the things I do, instead of right out dismissing them as bunk.



Besides, I am not the one who is trying to say killing children is fair and right.
Maybe, just maybe, I understand, & that is why I am telling you it is fair.
I've been attempting to explain, but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

I've told you, but as I figured, you didn't listen.

I'm telling you that it matters where one is and that Satan did those things to Job and the parents put the harm to children.

To blame God for letting satan to harm Job would be like blaming God for letting you sin.
To blame God for the children being killed would be like blaming God for letting the Christians die in the Twin Towers on 9/11.

Diolectic
Nov 18th 2008, 06:04 PM
If, as you seem to suggest, our moral will is free and capable of choosing good without divine aide, then how do we account for the fact that, according to God's perspective on mankind, "every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually"?
Why don't you account that the intent of the thoughts of man's heart being only evil continually by choice, by his free will?

If you do, then you must acknowledge that, by choice of free will, one is able to not have thoughts being only evil continually.

If one is evil by choice, here must be a choice not to ge evil, if not how is there choice to be evil without choice of the contrary.

If there is no choice in being evil, one must prove the culpability of having no choice.



How is it, if mankind is morally neutral
Who's claiming that mankind is morally neutral?
Man is either morally bad by choice or morally good by choice.

If not, one must prove the culpability of having no choice.



such that statistically we would expect a fraction of the human population to live sinless lives that "There is none righteous, not even one"?
If I tell you, will you actually listen & not read it with your defenses up?


If choosing the good is a free volitional choice, how is it that Jesus was the only human being to ever live a sinless life?
Your mixing things up here.
1st: choice has nothing to do with being sinless as Jesus.

2nd: God commands things; Command implies ability.
Ability includes a choice to execute or not.
No one can deny that, it is fact.
If one does deny this, one must prove the culpability of having no choice.



If we attempt to preserve the free will of man in order to claim that man is in full control of his own destiny such that he is fully capable of accepting God's offer of salvation, how is it that we don't also affirm that man has a free will choice to avoid sin altogether?
We do have a free will choice to avoid sin altogether.
However, no one can avoid sin if they don't know Christ or the law. Since most humans are not brought up knowing Christ, then they will naturally sin.

Just like Paul, He was sinning with out knowing it.
Paul was lusting before he learned of the commandment "thou shall not covet (Romans 7:7)
However, just knowing that you sin, will not help you. One needs to know how to stop walking after the flesh so they will jot fulfill its lusts.



Is salvation merely the forensic act of pardon, or does it also involve a change of nature?
Nature is a very ambiguous word.

Our "nature" remains human all our lives, it never changes.

However, attitude & affections, our view on life, and motives for everything that one does, that we call a "nature" do change.
It is also a changed life style.




And if salvation involves a change of nature, what can it mean to become a "new creature" in Christ if it doesn't mean that the old creature was deficient in some way?
The term "new creation/creature" is an analogy.
We don't actually become "recreated", but we are changed from our old attitude & affections, our old view on life, and a old motive for everything that we did changes to all new, good & right ones.

This is analogized with "new creation".

BroRog
Nov 18th 2008, 08:16 PM
Why don't you account that the intent of the thoughts of man's heart being only evil continually by choice, by his free will?

I thought that would be obvious.

Paul says this about himself in Romans 7.

For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

He says that an innate principle (law) of his members (his body) wages war with an innate principle of his mind. In his mind he can joyfully concur with God's law but at the very core of his being he continues to covet.
Apart from divine aid, his experience is one of being only evil continually.

Now since Paul says there is none righteous and all are evil, then we can safely conclude that Paul's experience is universal. Even if a man wants to be good, joyfully concurs with God's law in his mind, he can not be a good person. According to Paul, his will is not free; it's in bondage to the law of his members.


If there is no choice in being evil, one must prove the culpability of having no choice.

Paul isn't saying that he has no choice whether to be good or bad. He is saying that a war is going on inside himself and that when it comes to covetousness, he loses.

I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.

So then, it isn't a matter of being capable of doing good or evil. It's a matter of being evil from the inside. Human beings are capable of doing both good and evil. But it just so happens that we do evil. None of us has lived a sinless life, which if the will was totally free, we would find a fraction of human beings living a totally good life. But we don't find any human beings, except for Jesus, who always did the good and never had an evil thought.


Who's claiming that mankind is morally neutral?
Man is either morally bad by choice or morally good by choice.

That's what I mean by morally neutral. When you say man is either morally good or morally bad by choice, I assume you mean to claim that mankind has no internal struggle with evil. Paul seems to think that his moral bent is the result of a war going on inside him such that he can both agree with the law against coveting, but yet covet all the time. If he were unique, then you might have a point. But he says that everyone is evil, just like him. One can hardly say man is able to be morally good by choice, since we can't find an exemplar anywhere, except for Jesus.


Your mixing things up here.
1st: choice has nothing to do with being sinless as Jesus.

2nd: God commands things; Command implies ability.
Ability includes a choice to execute or not.[/quote]

The talk is about the doctrine of Total Depravity. Speaking into that context we ask whether the doctrine has correctly understood the nature of man.

You have decided to argue that man is capable of making a choice, basing your argument on the logical implication of having a free will, and the logical implication of being commanded to obey. Both of these inherent aspects of mankind speak to his ability to choose.

I'm attempting to point out that the issue goes beyond human capability. The issue isn't so much about what I am able to do, but it centers around what I WANT to do. The concept of free will says that I am free to choose salvation or not and which ever way I decide to go, I was always free do to the opposite. But what we tend to forget is the fact that, even as man is theoretically able to go one way or the other, he always goes one particular way.

It's as if God gives man the free will choice to go left or right. But we always find man going left. And his going left was always by his choice according to what he actually wants. He is free to choose left or right. Nothing stops him from going right. But he always chooses left. Why?

The Bible seems to suggest that when it comes to certain choices, mankind always makes the wrong choice.

I would disagree with Calvinists on this one point. It's not that we never choose the good. We do. But when it comes to accepting the truth about God and the truth about ourselves, which is a prerequisite to salvation, mankind always gets it wrong without help.


We do have a free will choice to avoid sin altogether.
However, no one can avoid sin if they don't know Christ or the law. Since most humans are not brought up knowing Christ, then they will naturally sin.

Well, that's the point isn't it? :) It's a question of what we do naturally and the Calvinists say that we naturally refuse salvation.


However, just knowing that you sin, will not help you. One needs to know how to stop walking after the flesh so they will jot fulfill its lusts.


Paul's point is that he will not stop waring with his flesh until the next age.


The term "new creation/creature" is an analogy.
We don't actually become "recreated", but we are changed from our old attitude & affections, our old view on life, and a old motive for everything that we did changes to all new, good & right ones.

This is analogized with "new creation".


The New Testament authors are not afraid to use terms like "born again", "regeneration", "new creature", "awaken", "eyes that see", "ears that hear", "transforming of the mind", etc. And we are not the agents of our own change. We don't birth ourselves. We don't cure ourselves of blindness. We don't remove our own hearts of stone. The agent of our change is the Holy Spirit according to the Bible.

Diolectic
Nov 18th 2008, 11:21 PM
I thought that would be obvious.

Paul says this about himself in Romans 7.

For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

He says that an innate principle (law) of his members (his body) wages war with an innate principle of his mind. In his mind he can joyfully concur with God's law but at the very core of his being he continues to covet.That "innate principle (law) of his members (his body)" is the ''law of sin'', which is the demands of our own fleshly desires & affections against known law that bring us in opposition to God which separates us from Him.
The ''law of sin'' includes the inability of the flesh to deny its own fleshly desires apart from the Spirit & faith in HIM.
This concludes that which is in our ''members'' (Romans 7:23) are the unlawful affections &/or desires which brings about spiritual death.
Spiritual Death is the effect of sin according to Romans 6:23.
Spiritual Death is the separation from God as having no relationship with the Father thought Christ.

Apart from divine aid, his experience is one of being only evil continually.The "divine aid" comes in the form as the Word of God, Christians as His witnesses & persuasion.


Now since Paul says there is none righteous and all are evilWrong.
Paul says there is none righteous and anone are GOOD.
However, there are places where the Bible calls men good.

then we can safely conclude that Paul's experience is universal. Even if a man wants to be good, joyfully concurs with God's law in his mind, he can not be a good person. According to Paul, his will is not free; it's in bondage to the law of his members.
It don't say that his "will" is in bondage to the law of his members.
Show me were it is according to Paul.
Moreover, choosing to DO and wanting are two different things.
Notice that even before Paul was saved, he wanted to do good, but the problem was that he didn't know how.
Therefore, people are able to want to be saved, in turn, they choose to do what God says for HIM to save; which is, choosing to repent and to believe.
Doing what God says for HIM to save is not complicated or aggravated by the flesh as doing the law is.


If there is no choice in being evil, one must prove the culpability of having no choice.
Paul isn't saying that he has no choice whether to be good or bad. He is saying that a war is going on inside himself and that when it comes to covetousness, he loses.

I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.

So then, it isn't a matter of being capable of doing good or evil. It's a matter of being evil from the inside.
Not "an evil inside", but the flesh.
It ain't our nature, but our flesh.

Human beings are capable of doing both good and evil. But it just so happens that we do evil.Wrong, we also do good.
Unsaved people will give their lives to save another.
Just as the firemen in 9/11 went in the towers knowing they could die.

None of us has lived a sinless life, which if the will was totally free, we would find a fraction of human beings living a totally good life.
We do, they are Christians.
However, I've explained why we don't see anyone living a sinless life without Christ.

But we don't find any human beings, except for Jesus, who always did the good and never had an evil thought.
The only reason that Jesus lived a sinless life is because He loved His Father, that is how we not sin, there is no difference.
On the other hand, a child born brought up knowing Christ, which is eternal life, and becomes accountable for it's own actions will be able to follow the righteous requirements of the Law because of his love for God.
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.


Who's claiming that mankind is morally neutral?That's what I mean by morally neutral. When you say man is either morally good or morally bad by choice, I assume you mean to claim that mankind has no internal struggle with evil.
They only have a struggle when the come to God's law.
After the righteous requirements of the Law of God have done their job, everyone will end up saying this.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Romans 7:24)

Paul seems to think that his moral bent is the result of a war going on inside him such that he can both agree with the law against coveting, but yet covet all the time.
That would be called walking after the flesh.
However, one is able to choose to walk after the spirit by choosing to repent and put one's faith in Christ & what He said & done.
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

If he were unique, then you might have a point. But he says that everyone is evil, just like him.Show me where Paul says that "everyone is evil".


One can hardly say man is able to be morally good by choice, since we can't find an exemplar anywhere, except for Jesus.
We find them in churches.

It's as if God gives man the free will choice to go left or right. But we always find man going left.
Then explain how all these Christians who chose to repent.

And his going left was always by his choice according to what he actually wants.True, someone persuaded him to repent.
The one was persuaded to change his desire.
With the new desire, he nay feely repent.

He is free to choose left or right. Nothing stops him from going right. But he always chooses left. Why?
Because he wasn't persuaded yet.

The Bible seems to suggest that when it comes to certain choices, mankind always makes the wrong choice.Please prove that point.
Don't use statistics.



I would disagree with Calvinists on this one point. It's not that we never choose the good. We do. But when it comes to accepting the truth about God and the truth about ourselves, which is a prerequisite to salvation, mankind always gets it wrong without help.The help would be the Word of God, other Christians with their witness and encouragement and persuasion.




We do have a free will choice to avoid sin altogether.

However, no one can avoid sin if they don't know Christ or the law. Since most humans are not brought up knowing Christ, then they will naturally sin. Well, that's the point isn't it? :) It's a question of what we do naturally and the Calvinists say that we naturally refuse salvation.How did you or anyone get saved then?
Did you say, "f**k you God, I hate you" & boom, you were saved?
Or
Did you say by choice, "Okay God, your right, I am needing you. I love you for your grace"
(I don't realy cuse, I used the "symbol" to make a point)


However, just knowing that you sin, will not help you. One needs to know how to stop walking after the flesh so they will jot fulfill its lusts.Paul's point is that he will not stop waring with his flesh until the next age.
we can only do that by choosing to walk after the spirit.


The term "new creation/creature" is an analogy.
We don't actually become "recreated", but we are changed from our old attitude & affections, our old view on life, and a old motive for everything that we did changes to all new, good & right ones.
This is analogized with "new creation". The New Testament authors are not afraid to use terms like "born again", "regeneration", "new creature", "awaken", "eyes that see", "ears that hear", "transforming of the mind", etc. And we are not the agents of our own change. We don't birth ourselves. We don't cure ourselves of blindness. We don't remove our own hearts of stone. The agent of our change is the Holy Spirit according to the Bible.
True, but we are able to & we must choose to repent & put our faith in & on Christ & what He said & done.

With out doing so, you will not be born again, God will hot regenerate you.

legoman
Nov 19th 2008, 01:17 AM
To blame God for letting satan to harm Job would be like blaming God for letting you sin.


From the scriptures we can see that it was God who was ultimately responsible for the trials Job faced. You may not believe it, but that is what the scriptures say:

Job 1:8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

It was God's idea that Satan should test Job. He was setting Satan up.

Job 1:12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

Notice here Satan can only do what God allows. In fact Satan was doing exactly what God wanted at that moment. God is in complete control. If God was not involved in anyway as you suggest with Job's trials, then this conversation would not have even taken place, and God would not be sovereign.

Look at this verse:
Job 23:10 "But He knows the way I take;
When He has tried me, I shall come forth as gold.

Even Job knew it was God, not Satan, that was ultimately responsible for his trials. But he also knew that because of the trials he would become "as gold". He was being tried in the fire, just like all of us are.

It was all God's plan. Just like everything that happens to each of us.

Cheers,
Legoman

Friend of I AM
Nov 19th 2008, 03:03 PM
From the scriptures we can see that it was God who was ultimately responsible for the trials Job faced. You may not believe it, but that is what the scriptures say:

Job 1:8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

It was God's idea that Satan should test Job. He was setting Satan up.

Job 1:12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

Notice here Satan can only do what God allows. In fact Satan was doing exactly what God wanted at that moment. God is in complete control. If God was not involved in anyway as you suggest with Job's trials, then this conversation would not have even taken place, and God would not be sovereign.

Look at this verse:
Job 23:10 "But He knows the way I take;
When He has tried me, I shall come forth as gold.

Even Job knew it was God, not Satan, that was ultimately responsible for his trials. But he also knew that because of the trials he would become "as gold". He was being tried in the fire, just like all of us are.

It was all God's plan. Just like everything that happens to each of us.

Cheers,
Legoman

Good points Legoman. Remember though, there are those things that God allows and knows about which he doesn't necessarily state as being supportive of. This kind of goes with the discussion that we were having the other day about free will. Who knows exactly how many choices God has allowed to have within his sovereignty. I'm sure he always hopes for his children to make the right choices, even though at times he knows they will make the wrong choices at times.

In Christian Love,

Stephen

Friend of I AM
Nov 19th 2008, 03:08 PM
The problem comes with definitions of obedience.

What would yours look like?

Have confidence in what you do as being right. Ask God for guidance if you don't know if what you're doing is right. Love God, and love one another. From what I've learned in life, it's best to keep things as simple as possible.

Diolectic
Nov 19th 2008, 04:23 PM
To blame God for letting satan to harm Job would be like blaming God for letting you sin.From the scriptures we can see that it was God who was ultimately responsible for the trials Job faced.
Why, because God let satan live and free to do as he pleases?
According to your thinking, the judge would be ultimately responsible for the crimes done in prison which he sent the criminals to.

You may not believe it, but that is what the scriptures say:

Job 1:8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."Please don't think I didn't know that.



It was God's idea that Satan should test Job. He was setting Satan up.

Job 1:12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
It was not God's idea that Satan should test Job!
God never said, "hey satan, Iv'e got a job(no pun intended) for you to do.
Satan came to God, God didn't call for satan.
When God asked satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? "
God was "reading satan's mind" if you will.



Notice here Satan can only do what God allows. In fact Satan was doing exactly what God wanted at that moment. God is in complete control. If God was not involved in anyway as you suggest with Job's trials, then this conversation would not have even taken place, and God would not be sovereign.
I don't suggest that God was not involved in anyway.
God did not initiate the trial of Job, satan did. God put boundaries on satan.
Just as with peter.
Luke 22:31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith cease (die) not: and when you have returned, strengthen your brethren.
According to you, God initiated satan to sift Peter, however, as we know, it was satan who initiated the sifting.
God put the boundary on satan that peter would not fail.



Look at this verse:
Job 23:10 "But He knows the way I take;
When He has tried me, I shall come forth as gold.

Even Job knew it was God, not Satan, that was ultimately responsible for his trials. But he also knew that because of the trials he would become "as gold". He was being tried in the fire, just like all of us are.
Job's message is not that God is the author of all trials.
If God was, then it was God who put a "hit man" out on Jobs kids.
That is what your theology has God as.
The message of Job is that all trials are filtered through God's hands, not brought about by God's hands.



It was all God's plan. Just like everything that happens to each of us.
No, it was satan's plan, God only used it for good.

BroRog
Nov 20th 2008, 12:08 AM
Wrong.
Paul says there is none righteous and anone are GOOD.
However, there are places where the Bible calls men good.

Romans 3:9 There is none who seeks for God.

Pelagious argued, as you seem to be doing, that man's free will remains unabated and autonomous. The Reformers, Calvinists and Arminians both, argued that man needs God's help to seek him. The difference between Calvinists and Arminians is centered on the availablity of God's grace. Calvinists teach that God only opens the eyes of the elect, whereas Arminians teach that God opens the eyes of everyone.


It don't say that his "will" is in bondage to the law of his members.
Show me were it is according to Paul.

Paul says he is a prisoner of the law of his members. In this he highlights a principle of our human nature where passions, lusts, and desires live.


Moreover, choosing to DO and wanting are two different things.

When you raise the issue of the will, the central focus of the discussion turns to what we want to do. According to you, human beings are free to want salvation, which runs contrary to the Biblical picture and our experience.


Notice that even before Paul was saved, he wanted to do good, but the problem was that he didn't know how.

Paul is describing his current experience in Romans 7, not his pre-conversion experience. His current experience is that he covets all the time. This is in answer to your question about whether being evil is a choice. According to Paul, it isn't a choice but the current state of our being.


We do, they are Christians.
However, I've explained why we don't see anyone living a sinless life without Christ.


No one lives a sinless life, not even Christians.

If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves.


The only reason that Jesus lived a sinless life is because He loved His Father, that is how we not sin, there is no difference.


Jesus did not sin because that's the kind of person he was. We sin because that's the kind of people we are. Big difference.


That would be called walking after the flesh.
However, one is able to choose to walk after the spirit by choosing to repent and put one's faith in Christ & what He said & done.

Let's stay on topic. You have moved the discussion past the point of conversion. The concept of Total Depravity, concerns itself with our pre-conversion experience, before the Spirit of God has opened our eyes to the truth.


Show me where Paul says that "everyone is evil".

" . . . we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin . . ." Romans 3:9

I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. Romans 7:21

And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for [our] adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. Romans 8:23-25

It's easy to get the impression that the redemption of the body is merely a beautification process by which God makes us look like beautiful Hollywood stars, with perfect skin, and pecks to die for. But in the context of Romans 7 and 8, the redemption of the body is when God finally solves our problem with being sinful. Paul says that we are all under sin, and that evil is present within him. And he describes his bondage to sin in terms of a war between what he knows is good, and what he actually does about it.

He refers to this transformation from being a wretched man into a glorified man as a future hope, for who hopes for what he sees?, he asks.


Then explain how all these Christians who chose to repent.


Both Calvinists and Arminians teach that Christians came to repent because God first acted to open our eyes to the truth. Arminians say he does this for everyone so that everyone has a chance to make the choice; Calvinists teach that he does this for the elect only.

Jesus taught that a man could not see the kingdom of God unless he was first born again, or born from above. In this we see that regeneration comes before repentance or salvation. Without divine aide, a man can not come to saving faith according to Jesus.


we can only do that by choosing to walk after the spirit.


Walking after the Spirit is not living a sinless life.


With out doing so, you will not be born again, God will hot regenerate you.

On the contrary, without being born again, without regeneration, we can not repent or come to saving faith. :)

Diolectic
Nov 20th 2008, 04:53 PM
Paul says there is none righteous and none are GOOD. However, there are places where the Bible calls men good.Romans 3:9 There is none who seeks for God. Pelagius argued, as you seem to be doing, that man's free will remains unabated and autonomous. The Reformers, Calvinists and Armenians both, argued that man needs God's help to seek him.One does not need help to initiate a search for truth, one may find Christ in the pursuit of he truth.


The difference between Calvinists and Armenians is centered on the availability of God's grace. Calvinists teach that God only opens the eyes of the elect, whereas Armenians teach that God opens the eyes of everyone.According to that, the Armenians have the greater God.



It don't say that his "will" is in bondage to the law of his members. Show me were it is according to Paul.Paul says he is a prisoner of the law of his members. In this he highlights a principle of our human nature where passions, lusts, and desires live.No, it highlights a principle of our flesh.

However, I did reject too soon, before I had a chance to think.
I will take back my objection.
You were correct, It does say that his "will" is in bondage to the law of his members.

Romans 7:23 is better to be understood as saying this:
"But now, I see different set of requirements, and they are in my members, warring against the standard of my moral conscience, and bringing me into captivity to those requirements of my own unlawful, fleshly desires which are in my members."

Romans 7:14, Galatians 5:17b
The ''law of sin'' or is the demands of our own unlawful fleshly desires & affections against known law that bring us in opposition to God which separates us from Him. The ''law of sin'' includes the inability of the flesh to deny its own fleshly desires apart from the Spirit & faith in HIM.

This concludes that which is in our ''members'' (verse :23) are the unlawful affections &/or desires of the flesh which brings about spiritual death.

However, Paul said this according to pre-salvation.



Moreover, choosing to DO and wanting are two different things. When you raise the issue of the will, the central focus of the discussion turns to what we want to do. According to you, human beings are free to want salvation, which runs contrary to the Biblical picture and our experience.It runs along side with Scripture, not contrary.
As one is persuaded of the truth, he will come to want salvation.



Notice that even before Paul was saved, he wanted to do good, but the problem was that he didn't know how.Paul is describing his current experience in Romans 7 not his pre-conversion experience.Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal sold under sin.
If Paul was writing about post salvation, he wouldn't say that he is "sold under sin"; being sold into something is a term of slavery.

Paul tells us that as Christians, we are slaves of Christ or of righteousness.
The fact which Paul says that he is "sold under sin" tells us that he is conveying a pre-salvation experience.


His current experience is that he covets all the time. This is in answer to your question about whether being evil is a choice. According to Paul, it isn't a choice but the current state of our being.Self control is of the Fruit of the Spirit. To be lusting all the time is a sign that one is either not saved, carnal, or never walking after the spirit .
Paul never claims to "lust all the time".
All that Paul tells us is he had not known sin, but by the law: for he had not known lust, except the law had said, you shall not covet.

IOW, Paul did not know his desires were unlawful until he found the law to be against them; for he also did not know lust [was wrong] until he read the requirement of the law, "You shall not lust."



We do, they are Christians. However, I've explained why we don't see anyone living a sinless life without ChristNo one lives a sinless life, not even Christians.

If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves.1John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves.
The word "sin" here is the abstract term for unlawful affections, which stem from the flesh in which sin is condemned(Romans 8:3b & Galatians 5:17b)
So, this verse could say:
If we say we have no unlawful affections, we are deceiving ourselves.

I'm not denying that I have unlawful affections (sin), however, I bear the fruit of the spirit, have self control and walk after the spirit, and I do not act upon my unlawful affections.
I "have sin", but I do not sin.



The only reason that Jesus lived a sinless life is because He loved His Father, that is how we not sin, there is no differenceJesus did not sin because that's the kind of person he was. We sin because that's the kind of people we are. Big difference.True, your onto something there, but do you really know what?
To understand this more, we must know that the "kind" of man changes when he becomes saved.

The "kind" of man is reveled by the "kind" of fruit he bears, good or bad; of righteousness or sin.

All sin is that fruit which tells us what kind of man he is. Just as we can tell what kind if tree one is by its fruit.

The kind of fruit which man bears is from what man is rooted in, which is of either three things. Rooted in Christ, the world or one's self.
But remember, what ever a tree or man is grafted into changes his/its fruit.

Just as a trees nature is to bear fruit, so is mans.

What decides a tree's fruit is what kind of tree and what its root is of.
So, it is with man.
John 15:4b ...As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
Romans 11:16b ...and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
Romans 11:24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree...

James 1:24 for he studied himself, and has gone away, and immediately he forgot of what kind he was.

The way we overcome sin is the same way Jesus did, the only way He overcame sin & the world is by loving God by walking after the spirit, bearing the fruit of the spirit.
No one can sin while walking after the spirit.
This is how Jesus overcame the world/sin, this is how we do the same.(1John 5:4)



That would be called walking after the flesh. However, one is able to choose to walk after the spirit by choosing to repent and put one's faith in Christ & what He said & done.Let's stay on topic. You have moved the discussion past the point of conversion. The concept of Total Depravity, concerns itself with our pre-conversion experience, before the Spirit of God has opened our eyes to the truth.Ones eyes may be open to the truth before salvation. However, it does not mean that he is "regenerated"

God brings the truth of the Gospel by the way of His witnesses/Christians & His Word.



Show me where Paul says that "everyone is evil"." . . . we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin . . ." Romans 3:9Not "evil" here.


I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. Romans 7:21A better word for "evil" here would be "corruption".
However, Paul says that "evil" is "with him", not that he "is" evil.
Therefore, you have not proved that every one is evil.


And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for [our] adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. Romans 8:23-25 It's easy to get the impression that the redemption of the body is merely a beautification process by which God makes us look like beautiful Hollywood stars, with perfect skin, and pecks to die for. But in the context of Romans 7 and 8, the redemption of the body is when God finally solves our problem with being sinful.It ain't doing away with "being sinful", but doing away with the flesh, which is our problem.


Paul says that we are all under sin, and that evil is present within him. And he describes his bondage to sin in terms of a war between what he knows is good, and what he actually does about it.Again, not "under sin" the way you imply, but "sold into slavery to our own unlawful affections", or "sold into slavery to sin"
Sin is not present "in him", but "with him".


He refers to this transformation from being a wretched man into a glorified man as a future hope, for who hopes for what he sees?, he asks.The wretched, condemned man is the one who is not in Christ Jesus, who walks after the flesh and not after the Spirit.(Romans 8:1)

Therefore, the wretched man becomes saved & no longer wretched, but the deliverance from the "body of death" come with the glorification of the body.



Then explain how all these Christians who chose to repent.Both Calvinists and Armenians teach that Christians came to repent because God first acted to open our eyes to the truth. Arminians say he does this for everyone so that everyone has a chance to make the choice; Calvinists teach that he does this for the elect only. Jesus taught that a man could not see the kingdom of God unless he was first born again, or born from above. In this we see that regeneration comes before repentance or salvation. Without divine aide, a man can not come to saving faith according to Jesus.One does not need to see the kingdom of God or be a child of God in order to repent, all one needs it to be convicted of the truth.
No need for "regeneration" for that.

Knowing that the term "regeneration" means being a child of God; the order must go as this:
1: Faith
2: Repentance
3: Justification/being made righteous
4: Reconciliation
5: Regeneration/Adoption
6: Sanctification
7: Glorification

God can not have children with out them first having faith in Christ toward repentance.

God can not have children with out them first being justified for reconciliation through faith in Christ.

Once these are taken care of, then God may call them sons (regenerate them)



We can only do that by choosing to walk after the spiritWalking after the Spirit is not living a sinless life.It is impossible to sin while one walks after the spirit.



With out doing so, you will not be born again, God will not regenerate you.On the contrary, without being born again, without regeneration, we can not repent or come to saving faith.Again, Knowing that the term "regeneration" means being a child of God, God can not have unrepentant children without faith toward Repentance; next, God's children must then be Justified/made righteous, then, through Christ that one will be reconciled to the Father for Him to regenerate/adopt the man as His child.

God will not save the unwilling.
He is not an abductor of the unwilling, nor is He a "rapist" as R.C. Sproul puts it.

John146
Nov 20th 2008, 07:53 PM
Jesus taught that a man could not see the kingdom of God unless he was first born again, or born from above. In this we see that regeneration comes before repentance or salvation. Without divine aide, a man can not come to saving faith according to Jesus.That isn't what scripture teaches.

Acts 2
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Clearly, Peter believed that repentance came first. I agree with Peter and disagree with you.

Eph 1
12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Clearly, Paul believed that faith comes first. I agree with Paul and disagree with you. After someone repents and believes THEN they are born of the Spirit and can see the kingdom of God and they are saved. Not before. You can't find any scripture that specifically says that faith and repentance follow regeneration. None. There is scripture that shows that salvation and being born again happen simultaneously.

Titus 3
4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Since repentance and faith are clearly required before salvation then repentance and faith are required before one is regenerated/born again as well.

BroRog
Nov 20th 2008, 08:21 PM
According to that, the Armenians have the greater God.

On the contrary, Arminianism elevates man while making God less. The logical conclusion of Arminianism is Open Theism in which man is totally free.


No, it highlights a principle of our flesh.

I don't know why we are stuck on semantics except I think your understanding of the term "flesh" is different than the way Paul is using in Romans. The dictionary definition simply refers to the meat on our bones, but in Romans, Paul has coined the term to indicate our entire being unaided by God. Those who are not being trained by the Holy Spirit, for instance, are "in the flesh".


However, Paul said this according to pre-salvation.


Let's not ignore the fact that he is speaking in the present tense.

I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.


Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal sold under sin.
If Paul was writing about post salvation, he wouldn't say that he is "sold under sin"; being sold into something is a term of slavery.


That's right. That's what he says about himself, present tense. I AM not I WAS carnal.


Paul tells us that as Christians, we are slaves of Christ or of righteousness.

Different argument; different context; different meaning.

For if we have become united with [Him] in the likeness of His death, [present reality] certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, [future reality] knowing this, that our old self was crucified with [Him], [present reality] in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves of sin. [future reality]
Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

In this we see that, although we can present our members to God as those alive from the dead, it takes effort and we still war with the principle of lust in our members. The lust is a present reality; not a past reality.


Self control is of the Fruit of the Spirit. To be lusting all the time is a sign that one is either not saved, carnal, or never walking after the spirit .


You seem to confuse what we are internally, i.e. covetous people, with what we are externally, i.e. practicing self control. To lust is not a sign that one is carnal. To lack self control might be. If one did not lust, then one wouldn't need the spiritual aid contained in the gift of self control.


Paul never claims to "lust all the time".

But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind;


IOW, Paul did not know his desires were unlawful until he found the law to be against them; for he also did not know lust [was wrong] until he read the requirement of the law, "You shall not lust."

I read him differently. The issue here isn't knowledge of the law but knowledge of self. He doesn't say, "Oh, the law says coveting is bad so I guess I'll stop now." Rather he says, "Oh, the law says coveting is bad and now that I have tried to stop coveting, I find coveting of every kind in me."

As he says, before the law came he was alive; after the law came he died. This describes his self-concept. Before the law came he had one picture of himself, i.e. as a righteous person, but once he fully understood the significance of the law against coveting, he realized that his initial self-image was incorrect. He wasn't "alive" he was "dead." That is to say, he thought that he was in God's favor (alive) but realized he was condemned (dead.)

And his path to redemption was not through becoming a better person, without lust in his heart. Instead, his path to redemption was his acceptance of the reality of his situation, his appeal to God for mercy, and his acceptance that Jesus is the savior.


The way we overcome sin is the same way Jesus did, the only way He overcame sin & the world is by loving God by walking after the spirit, bearing the fruit of the spirit.
No one can sin while walking after the spirit.
This is how Jesus overcame the world/sin, this is how we do the same.(1John 5:4)

I cringe when I hear people say they are walking after the spirit and never sin anymore. But the issue here is whether Jesus was, by nature, a good person and whether we, by nature are evil. And while we may avoid sinful behavior with the help of the Spirit, this divine aide only highlights the fact that we are not able to avoid sin without it, and that we are still waring with the law of our members.

It really isn't saying much to suggest that we never act on our lust. The fact is we have lust and we must constantly fight it.


Ones eyes may be open to the truth before salvation. However, it does not mean that he is "regenerated".


Regeneration is a prerequisite to saving faith, otherwise a man can not come to saving faith without it. That's what it means to be "born again". It means that God has removed our blindness and softened our hearts to him.


God brings the truth of the Gospel by the way of His witnesses/Christians & His Word.

But only those whom God has prepared to accept it, will accept it.


Not "evil" here.

If you are under sin, you are evil. Why deny the obvious?


A better word for "evil" here would be "corruption".

Same thing. :)


However, Paul says that "evil" is "with him", not that he "is" evil.


The idiomatic use of the word "with" indicates that it is part of him.


It ain't doing away with "being sinful", but doing away with the flesh, which is our problem.


The idea here is that we are innately evil, sinful people. We are evil to the core of our being, which in Paul's lingo is "the flesh". In the resurrection God is not going to remove our flesh, but instead, he is going to take corruption away from our flesh. (1Cor. 15)


Again, not "under sin" the way you imply, but "sold into slavery to our own unlawful affections", or "sold into slavery to sin"

I wasn't implying anything, I was quoting Paul verbatim. And if you want to say that we are sold into slavery of our own unlawful affections, then fine. But let's us not get so technical in our language that we totally miss the main point. The unlawful affections are still MINE. They are still a part of ME.


The wretched, condemned man is the one who is not in Christ Jesus, who walks after the flesh and not after the Spirit.

You missed the point entirely. Paul is the wretched man, not because of what he DOES, but because of who he IS. Even those who walk after the Spirit are wretched men and women because the struggle is still there; the war is still on; the work is still tiresome and lonely.


One does not need to see the kingdom of God or be a child of God in order to repent, all one needs it to be convicted of the truth.


Not in the way Jesus means it.


Knowing that the term "regeneration" means being a child of God; the order must go as this:
1: Faith
2: Repentance
3: Justification/being made righteous
4: Reconciliation
5: Regeneration/Adoption
6: Sanctification
7: Glorification

I would put regeneration first since none of the others are possible without it.


God can not have children with out them first having faith in Christ toward repentance.

Why not? Paul argues that Jacob was a child of God before Jacob was born.


God can not have children with out them first being justified for reconciliation through faith in Christ.


We can not know whether we, or another person is a child of God unless we see the faith. But God already knows who are his, not based on what he sees, but based on what he intends for them.


It is impossible to sin while one walks after the spirit.

I disagree, but this is a discussion for another time.


God will not save the unwilling.


Sure he does. Making them willing is the first step. :)

BroRog
Nov 20th 2008, 08:43 PM
That isn't what scripture teaches.

Acts 2
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Clearly, Peter believed that repentance came first. I agree with Peter and disagree with you.

Eph 1
12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Clearly, Paul believed that faith comes first. I agree with Paul and disagree with you. After someone repents and believes THEN they are born of the Spirit and can see the kingdom of God and they are saved. Not before. You can't find any scripture that specifically says that faith and repentance follow regeneration. None. There is scripture that shows that salvation and being born again happen simultaneously.

Titus 3
4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Since repentance and faith are clearly required before salvation then repentance and faith are required before one is regenerated/born again as well.

It's easy to confuse what is really happening in reality with the way we experience it. For instance, when we say that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, we are describing things as we see it. And even if we know that the apparent rise and fall of the sun is due to the Earth's rotation on its axis, we still describe it as a rise and fall.

The same is true with salvation. We experience salvation as a moment in time when we heard a message and believed it. But this is only how we experience it, not how it really is.

Lest we pit Peter against Jesus we first understand that Peter is commanding that his audience repent and be baptized. The author of Acts does not explain why some believed and some didn't. Second, we read what Peter commanded and what happened as the result. But we are not made privy to how the result came about.

Jesus tells us, in his dialog with Nicodemus, what salvation looks like from God's point of view. According to Jesus, a man comes to saving faith because God has first "birthed" him. He says this in response to Nicodemus' confession that he believes that Jesus comes from God because of the miracles he is doing.

"Rabbi, we know that You have come from God [as] a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

Jesus points out that unless God had first "birthed" Nicodemus, he never would have believed that Jesus came from God. The miracles didn't convince everybody. The miracles were convincing only to those who were ready and prepared to accept what they represented.

Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus was seeing the kingdom of God. Jesus explains that unless God had done his thing in Nicodemus in the first place, he couldn't have recognized the kingdom of God in the miracles.

John146
Nov 20th 2008, 08:58 PM
It's easy to confuse what is really happening in reality with the way we experience it. For instance, when we say that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, we are describing things as we see it. And even if we know that the apparent rise and fall of the sun is due to the Earth's rotation on its axis, we still describe it as a rise and fall.

The same is true with salvation. We experience salvation as a moment in time when we heard a message and believed it. But this is only how we experience it, not how it really is.

Lest we pit Peter against Jesus we first understand that Peter is commanding that his audience repent and be baptized. The author of Acts does not explain why some believed and some didn't. Second, we read what Peter commanded and what happened as the result. But we are not made privy to how the result came about.

Jesus tells us, in his dialog with Nicodemus, what salvation looks like from God's point of view. According to Jesus, a man comes to saving faith because God has first "birthed" him. He says this in response to Nicodemus' confession that he believes that Jesus comes from God because of the miracles he is doing.

"Rabbi, we know that You have come from God [as] a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

Jesus points out that unless God had first "birthed" Nicodemus, he never would have believed that Jesus came from God. The miracles didn't convince everybody. The miracles were convincing only to those who were ready and prepared to accept what they represented.

Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus was seeing the kingdom of God. Jesus explains that unless God had done his thing in Nicodemus in the first place, he couldn't have recognized the kingdom of God in the miracles.He didn't say "unless one is born again, he cannot repent and believe". Unless you show me scripture that says that, I see no reason to agree with you.

BroRog
Nov 21st 2008, 01:00 AM
He didn't say "unless one is born again, he cannot repent and believe". Unless you show me scripture that says that, I see no reason to agree with you.

I guess you won't agree with me then. :)

But consider this, the term "born again" can just as easily be translated "born from above." And what does Jesus mean when he says a man must be "born again" or "born from above"?

And why did Jesus expect Nicodemus to know this about the Spirit? Could it be that the concept of being "born from above" is found in the Hebrew scriptures? And could it refer to the moment when the Spirit transforms a man from a hard hearted, unrepentant, stubborn, obstinate, unbeliever into a soft hearted, repentant, humble, and honest believer?

I think so. Check it out.

Diolectic
Nov 21st 2008, 04:09 PM
On the contrary, Arminianism elevates man while making God less.
I' not Arminianism, because the logical conclusion is wrong.
However, I am on their side of the aisle.
Furthermore, my view glorifies God by agreeing to the word of God that one is able to willfully, intentionally acknowledge the truth on his own by being persuaded of the truth, he humbles himself by agreeing with God that he is a sinner in need of salvation.

Calvinism/Reformed theology diminishes God by making him not so great that no one can recognize His greatness without God forcing them to against their will.

You also turn God into a sadistic tyrant arbitrarily creating some as the electing and creating some for eternal torment.

Calvinism/Reformed theology has God not wanting to save His sentient creation even thought they are loved and prayed for unwittingly not known that they aren't elect.

Calvinism/Reformed theology has God not giving faith or repentance to the ones He doesn't want to save while commanding them to do so.

Calvinism/Reformed theology has God condemning mankind for that which He is responsible for and directly responsible for the faithlessness & unrepentance of the world, all because God must give faith or repentance and will not but commands mankind to have faith or repentance

I could go on with the atrocities of Calvinism/Reformed theology which portrays God as a sadistic tyrant, but you get the picture.


The logical conclusion of Arminianism is Open Theism in which man is totally free.
And what about the logical conclusions to your theology?



No, it highlights a principle of our flesh.I don't know why we are stuck on semantics except I think your understanding of the term "flesh" is different than the way Paul is using in Romans. The dictionary definition simply refers to the meat on our bones, but in Romans, Paul has coined the term to indicate our entire being unaided by God. Those who are not being trained by the Holy Spirit, for instance, are "in the flesh".It ain't semantics. I've learned that when speaking theology, one needs to speak with specific words as to not give the wrong conclusion.
As for the term "flesh", the flesh is the weakness of man which he gives into for sin.(Mat 26:41) It refers to the untamed, the amoral, sensual, animalistic part of our being, which takes pleasure in what ever, good or bad, for it has no mind.




However, Paul said this according to pre-salvation.Let's not ignore the fact that he is speaking in the present tense. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
Yes, the flesh, its passions & lusts remains with us all our life., but Paul is portraying a pre-salvation experience.
Otherwise, you have Paul being an evil Christian who was still sold under sin and continued to sin while walking after the spirit as he wrote Scripture.
That is nonsense.



Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal sold under sin.
If Paul was writing about post salvation, he wouldn't say that he is "sold under sin"; being sold into something is a term of slavery.
That's right. That's what he says about himself, present tense. I AM not I WAS carnal.
Paul was not a carnal Christian.
Romans 8:6For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7: Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8: So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.


Paul tells us that as Christians, we are slaves of Christ or of righteousness.Different argument; different context; different meaning.It is not a Different argument, different context, different meaning.
Sold under sin is the same as being a slave to it.
Before Christ, we were slaves of sin to death, but now, we as Christians are no longer sold under sin, for we now yield our members as slaves to obedience to righteousness (Romans 6:16)





Paul never claims to "lust all the timeBut sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind;
Romans 7:8Now Sin, getting an incentive through the precept, produces in me all manner of coveting. For apart from law Sin is dead."
But, there is no problem here since Paul is conveying a pre-salvation experience.
Could I ask you to read this --- so you know where I'm coming fro in Romans 7?


IOW, Paul did not know his desires were unlawful until he found the law to be against them; for he also did not know lust [was wrong] until he read the requirement of the law, "You shall not lust."I read him differently. The issue here isn't knowledge of the law but knowledge of self. He doesn't say, "Oh, the law says coveting is bad so I guess I'll stop now." Rather he says, "Oh, the law says coveting is bad and now that I have tried to stop coveting, I find coveting of every kind in me."
More like:
I did not know my desires were unlawful until I found the law to be against them; for also I did not know lust [was wrong] until I read the requirement, "You shall not lust."
Now, lawlessness starts by way of the commandment, and from that, it brought about (revealed) to me all that were truly unlawful desires.
And that because of the flesh.
This is how it must be understood; to get any other message out of it would be reading into the text.

As he says, before the law came he was alive; after the law came he died. This describes his self-concept. Before the law came he had one picture of himself, i.e. as a righteous person, but once he fully understood the significance of the law against coveting, he realized that his initial self-image was incorrect. He wasn't "alive" he was "dead." That is to say, he thought that he was in God's favor (alive) but realized he was condemned (dead.)
Sounds right.
Romans 7:8b Now, when there are no requirements of the law, there is no lawlessness...9: ...And I was alive when I didn't know the requirements of the law, but when I heard of that specific requirement ("You shall not lust." v.7), then my affections became known as unlawful, and I died spiritually.

And his path to redemption was not through becoming a better person, without lust in his heart. Instead, his path to redemption was his acceptance of the reality of his situation, his appeal to God for mercy, and his acceptance that Jesus is the savior.
Yep.
But I would add that He found deliverance of these passions through Christ.


The way we overcome sin is the same way Jesus did, the only way He overcame sin & the world is by loving God by walking after the spirit, bearing the fruit of the spirit.
No one can sin while walking after the spirit.
This is how Jesus overcame the world/sin, this is how we do the same.(1John 5:4)I cringe when I hear people say they are walking after the spirit and never sin anymore.I have not said that I never sin.
I do because I don't consistently walk after the spirit.

But the issue here is whether Jesus was, by nature, a good person and whether we, by nature are evil.Being evil & being sinner are two different things.
However, by nature, we are human.
We are bearing the fruit of our life, weather our life is in Christ or in the world or one's self.
We are also bearing the fruit of our choices that make based on our chosen affections
As our life is in Christ & our affections are on Him & His affection, our fruit is obedience to righteousness.
As for the unsaved, their life & affections are in themselves or the world bearing fruit unto death, sin


Ones eyes may be open to the truth before salvation. However, it does not mean that he is "regenerated".Regeneration is a prerequisite to saving faith, otherwise a man can not come to saving faith without it. That's what it means to be "born again". It means that God has removed our blindness and softened our hearts to him.
Do you know what regeneration means?
I told you in my last posting.
How &/or why would you continue to miss-use the word.


God brings the truth of the Gospel by the way of His witnesses/Christians & His Word.But only those whom God has prepared to accept it, will accept it.God "preparing" one to accept it is not regeneration.




Show me where Paul says that "everyone is evil"." . . . we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin . . ." Romans 3:9Not "evil" here.If you are under sin, you are evil. Why deny the obvious?Evil implies those who know they are bad and love it; they love to do bad things.
Most people are not like this.


A better word for "evil" here would be "corruption". Same thing.Not really. The word for "evil" may also be harm, wrong, bad, injurious...ect...
Maybe we only have different definitions of "evil".


However, Paul says that "evil" is "with him", not that he "is" evil:)The idiomatic use of the word "with" indicates that it is part of him.So, according to you, Paul was an evil/wicked Christian who was still sold under sin as he wrote Romans.
I Hope you don't teach.


It ain't doing away with "being sinful", but doing away with the flesh, which is our problem.The idea here is that we are innately evil, sinful people. We are evil to the core of our being, which in Paul's lingo is "the flesh". In the resurrection God is not going to remove our flesh, but instead, he is going to take corruption away from our flesh. (1Cor. 15)
So, Christians are no better of than the lost accept that our destiny is heaven & not hell.
Paul's term for "flesh" is the sensual, animalistic part of our being
The flesh is not sentient, can not have a will. It gives pleasure because of the senses. The flesh is the untamed, amoral, which takes pleasure in what ever, good or bad, for it has no mind.
The soul and/or spirit conciders the pleasure which the flesh gives and which pleasure is right and which is wrong. The soul and/or spirit wills between what is right and wrong.



Paul says that we are all under sin, and that evil is present within him. And he describes his bondage to sin in terms of a war between what he knows is good, and what he actually does about it. Again, not "under sin" the way you imply, but "sold into slavery to our own unlawful affections", or "sold into slavery to sin" I wasn't implying anything, I was quoting Paul verbatim. And if you want to say that we are sold into slavery of our own unlawful affections, then fine. But let's us not get so technical in our language that we totally miss the main point. The unlawful affections are still MINE. They are still a part of ME.They are your flesh, the amoral, sensual, animalistic part of our being.
not you.
Romans 7:17Now then it is no longer I that do it, but sin(unlawful desires) that dwells in me.
IOW, Paul is personifying sin which would be his affections which he found to be unlawful by the law.
God condemned sin in your flesh, not in you(Romans 8:3)



The wretched, condemned man is the one who is not in Christ Jesus, who walks after the flesh and not after the Spirit.You missed the point entirely. Paul is the wretched man, not because of what he DOES, but because of who he IS.Not because of who he IS, but because of what he found in/with him, which is the untamed, the amoral, sensual, animalistic part of our being, which takes pleasure in what ever, good or bad, for it has no mind.
I hate repeating myself, but I am trying to make a point.
The flesh is nonsentient, but paul personifies it as the culpret.
One could actualy call it the soul without the controling factor of the spirit that has been unified with God through Christ.
Strong's Concordance defines the "soul" as "the animal sentient principle only"
& in Romans 7:17it is not "him" or who he is that's doing the sinning, but a personified problem.

Even those who walk after the Spirit are wretched men and women because the struggle is still there; the war is still on; the work is still tiresome and lonely.Think what you want, Christians are not wretches as wicked people, as contemptible men.
We might be having different definition of the term wretch


One does not need to see the kingdom of God or be a child of God in order to repent; all one needs it to be convicted of the truth.Not in the way Jesus means it.Huh?
Could you elaborate?

Diolectic
Nov 21st 2008, 04:10 PM
I would put regeneration first since none of the others are possible without it.Then you would have:
1: unfaithful or faithless
2: unrepentant
3: unjustified/unrighteous
4: unreconciled…
…children of God.
This is ridiculous, unthinkable, & unscriptural.
You also might have a wrong definition of regeneration.


God can not have children with out them first having faith in Christ toward repentance. Why not? Paul argues that Jacob was a child of God before Jacob was born.Okay, but unborn children have nothing to be saved from, for they have not yet sinned.
Don't forget John the baptizer, for he was filled with the Holy Sprit from in the womb.
They, nor other infants were never:
1: unfaithful or faithless
2: unrepentant
3: unjustified/unrighteous
4: unreconciled…


God will not save the unwilling. Sure he does. Making them willing is the first step.So, you say that God makes one to be a son of God while he is yet unwilling to be one?
Sounds like abduction or rape to me.
I thought God was a gentleman.

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 04:38 PM
I guess you won't agree with me then. :)That's right. Why should I when you don't have any scripture to back up your opinion?


But consider this, the term "born again" can just as easily be translated "born from above." And what does Jesus mean when he says a man must be "born again" or "born from above"?

And why did Jesus expect Nicodemus to know this about the Spirit? Could it be that the concept of being "born from above" is found in the Hebrew scriptures? And could it refer to the moment when the Spirit transforms a man from a hard hearted, unrepentant, stubborn, obstinate, unbeliever into a soft hearted, repentant, humble, and honest believer?

I think so. Check it out.I think you need to check out the fact that people did not receive the Spirit until AFTER repenting and believing. People are capable of coming to the realization that they are sinners and humbling themselves before God without the need to be born again first.

Isaiah 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

Luke 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Matt 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Psalm 34:18 The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.

Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Isaiah 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

God expects people to humble and deny themselves. Nowhere do these passages or any others say that one must first be born again before people are able to recognize that they are sinners and need to humble themselves before God.

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 04:45 PM
I' not Arminianism, because the logical conclusion is wrong.
However, I am on their side of the aisle.
Furthermore, my view glorifies God by agreeing to the word of God that one is able to willfully, intentionally acknowledge the truth on his own by being persuaded of the truth, he humbles himself by agreeing with God that he is a sinner in need of salvation.

Calvinism/Reformed theology diminishes God by making him not so great that no one can recognize His greatness without God forcing them to against their will.

You also turn God into a sadistic tyrant arbitrarily creating some as the electing and creating some for eternal torment.

Calvinism/Reformed theology has God not wanting to save His sentient creation even thought they are loved and prayed for unwittingly not known that they aren't elect.

Calvinism/Reformed theology has God not giving faith or repentance to the ones He doesn't want to save while commanding them to do so.

Calvinism/Reformed theology has God condemning mankind for that which He is responsible for and directly responsible for the faithlessness & unrepentance of the world, all because God must give faith or repentance and will not but commands mankind to have faith or repentance

I could go on with the atrocities of Calvinism/Reformed theology which portrays God as a sadistic tyrant, but you get the picture.Agree. Calvinism has no answers for any of those points that you made. Their definition of the character of God contradicts what we see taught regarding the character of God throughout scripture. They make Him partially gracious instead of agreeing with scripture that the grace of God has appeared and been extended to all people. They make Him partially merciful instead of fully willing to have mercy on all if they would only repent. They make Him a respecter of persons despite the fact that so many verses say He is not a respecter of persons. And on it goes.

Friend of I AM
Nov 21st 2008, 06:56 PM
Agree. Calvinism has no answers for any of those points that you made. Their definition of the character of God contradicts what we see taught regarding the character of God throughout scripture. They make Him partially gracious instead of agreeing with scripture that the grace of God has appeared and been extended to all people. They make Him partially merciful instead of fully willing to have mercy on all if they would only repent. They make Him a respecter of persons despite the fact that so many verses say He is not a respecter of persons. And on it goes.

Did you have a bad experience with a Calvinist at some point in life...:)

Diolectic
Nov 21st 2008, 07:16 PM
Did you have a bad experience with a Calvinist at some point in life...:)I know of a few.
He wrote:
Calvinism has troubled me to the extent that I almost gave up on Christianity.
Some one wrote:
Basically, I have been Christian for around 4 years now and I find myself in a troubling situation.

I am questioning the authenticity of my conversion because I could never love the God that Calvinism presents. Therefore, I am starting to feel like I am a reprobate and God just decided to arbitrarily pass me by and bestow His amazing grace upon another.

This is causing my faith to be somewhat shipwreck because currently I am extremely hostile towards a God like that. I guess the Calvinist's would assume God obviously hasn't worked in my life yet. However, I would disagree from my conversion experience, dedication, and love for Christ. It was not until I discovered Calvinism that I began to doubt my salvation, because like I said, I will not (because I am unable, I suppose) worship a God like that.

You see, If Calvinism is true then I will definitely walk away from Christianity and await my "just", eternal punishment according to God's decree.
However, if I believe Calvinism is not true and I willfully persevere in dedication to the Biblical God my entire life, only to find that Calvinism is true and I am indeed not the elect, well I don't want to waste my time/life worshiping a God that hasn't chosen me.

So, I am assuming that since I cannot stand Calvinism's God, Calvinist's clearly see this as evidence that I am not a Christian. That is scary, but if Calvinism is a reality then it is a truth nonetheless.
I wonder how many Arminian's/Molinist's feel the same way as me, or is it more of a hope that Calvinism is untrue, but if it turns out to be true, it would have no affect on your love for God. This was the position I had before, but now I simply cannot take a neutral ground on Calvin's view of God. I am opposed to such a God, and if it is the Biblical God, then I must not be a Christian.
I have a couple of other friends who were also about to leave the faith because of the sadistic tyrant which Calvinism portrays God to be.

Calvinism & Reformed Theology makes up many of the reasons that the lost hate God. Because the their doctrines are so repulsive.

Since I hate the god which Calvinism & Reformed Theology portrays, (and I am a child of GOD) how much more will the lost hate the god of Calvinism & Reformed Theology?

If you actualy told the lost what Calvinism & Reformed Theology realy belives in y'alls preaching, witnessing & sermons, you would have no persuasion at all to repent or for faith.
The god of Calvinism & Reformed Theology is not a god of love grace and mercy.

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 07:17 PM
Did you have a bad experience with a Calvinist at some point in life...:)No, I didn't. This isn't about anything personal. It's the doctrine itself that is the problem.

Friend of I AM
Nov 21st 2008, 07:21 PM
No, I didn't. This isn't about anything personal. It's the doctrine itself that is the problem.

Oh okay. Well I think most man-made doctrines have inconsistencies in them. The best way I find is to use the scripture test against a doctrine and to have faith. Many times I find that most of what you'll find in any church will be off to a degree, due to the fallibilities of men. Still, if we trust in God - we will be able to discern the truth and error in a particular doctrine.

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 07:25 PM
Oh okay. Well I think most man-made doctrines have inconsistencies in them.And these doctrines that as a whole are referred to as "Calvinism" have many inconsistencies in them.


The best way I find is to use the scripture test against a doctrine and to have faith. Many times I find that most of what you'll find in any church will be off to a degree, due to the fallibilities of men. Still, if we trust in God - we will be able to discern the truth and error in a particular doctrine.Agree

BroRog
Nov 22nd 2008, 01:46 AM
Calvinism/Reformed theology diminishes God by making him not so great that no one can recognize His greatness without God forcing them to against their will.

Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism, both of which teach that man is incapable of coming to saving faith without divine aide, affirm that God forces someone to recognize him. Your charge against Calvinists is also a charge against Arminians, since both camps affirm the doctrine that man needs divine aid, i.e. the work of the Holy Spirit, for a man to come to saving faith. And your comment displays a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics involved.


You also turn God into a sadistic tyrant arbitrarily creating some as the electing and creating some for eternal torment.


Paul teaches that God creates some people for wrath and others for mercy according to his purposes. A charge that this is arbitrary is to say that God has NO purpose at all.


Calvinism/Reformed theology has God not wanting to save His sentient creation even thought they are loved and prayed for unwittingly not known that they aren't elect.


Are you being fair in your reiteration of Reformed Theology? You seem to be parroting the party line. I don't think you will find a Reformed theologian who says that God will not save those who want to be saved.


Calvinism/Reformed theology has God not giving faith or repentance to the ones He doesn't want to save while commanding them to do so.

While this might be a problem if God were human, it isn't a problem since God's election is a matter of creation. According to Paul, in Ephesians, God created the world so that God might give self expression to the glory of his grace. If this requires that he create some for wrath and others for mercy, then he has that right.

Calls to repent are general calls to everyone to repent. But as Jesus often says, "those who have ears, let them hear." If a man has no ears, then how can he hear? When he says "let them hear" he is speaking to those prepared to believe.


Calvinism/Reformed theology has God condemning mankind for that which He is responsible for and directly responsible for the faithlessness & unrepentance of the world, all because God must give faith or repentance and will not but commands mankind to have faith or repentance

According to Jesus we all fall under judgment. If God had done nothing at all, then we all would be under his wrath and we all would be in hell. Whether one affirms Calvinism or not, he still must deal with the fact that God is responsible for creating everyone subject to hell.

Alternatively, if one believes in original sin, then Adam is responsible for sending us all to hell and if God fails to act, we will all end up in hell. In this view, God didn't condemn mankind for that which he is not responsible, Adam did.

In any case, salvation is always an act of God's mercy; never giving man what man deserves.


It ain't semantics. I've learned that when speaking theology, one needs to speak with specific words as to not give the wrong conclusion.
As for the term "flesh", the flesh is the weakness of man which he gives into for sin. (Mat 26:41) It refers to the untamed, the amoral, sensual, animalistic part of our being, which takes pleasure in what ever, good or bad, for it has no mind.


That is certainly a way some people use the term. But this is not the way Paul uses the term "flesh".


Yes, the flesh, its passions & lusts remains with us all our life., but Paul is portraying a pre-salvation experience.
Otherwise, you have Paul being an evil Christian who was still sold under sin and continued to sin while walking after the spirit as he wrote Scripture.
That is nonsense.

It's not nonsense. It makes perfect sense, given that this is what Paul says about himself.


Paul was not a carnal Christian.
Romans 8:6For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7: Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8: So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

You are projecting your own definition of "flesh" onto the text and then extrapolating from that, you come to the wrong conclusion.

In chapter 7, the same chapter in which Paul claims that he is evil, he says that he serves the law in his mind. To be spiritually minded doesn't mean that a man is not evil or still waring with his lusts. To be spiritually minded is a Holy Spirit induced change of perspective, which results in a realistic self-assessment. In fact, a person can not come to the realisation of his wretched condition, as Paul did, unless he is spiritually minded.


Before Christ, we were slaves of sin to death, but now, we as Christians are no longer sold under sin, for we now yield our members as slaves to obedience to righteousness (Romans 6:16)

Romans 6:16 is not descriptive as if all those walking in the Spirit are always yielding the members to righteousness. Romans 6:16 is a command, which follows logically from the fact that those who have sought to be freed from sin will not choose to walk in it. However, failure is not indicative of a man walking in the flesh.


Romans 7:8Now Sin, getting an incentive through the precept, produces in me all manner of coveting. For apart from law Sin is dead."
But, there is no problem here since Paul is conveying a pre-salvation experience.


As I pointed out, Paul is speaking in the present tense, concerning aspects of his experience as if they are present and ongoing. If Paul was talking about his pre-conversion experience, he would speak in the third person.


More like:
I did not know my desires were unlawful until I found the law to be against them; for also I did not know lust [was wrong] until I read the requirement, "You shall not lust."
Now, lawlessness starts by way of the commandment, and from that, it brought about (revealed) to me all that were truly unlawful desires.
And that because of the flesh.
This is how it must be understood; to get any other message out of it would be reading into the text.

Your interpretation makes the central focus of Paul's experience to be a matter of being ignorant of one of God's moral precepts. In your view, Paul simply didn't know coveting was illegal. And having learned that coveting was illegal, he found all the ways he was coveting.

While Paul speaks about how the commandment "came" to him, and that once having understood the commandment he found coveting of all kinds, he also speaks about his self-assessment in terms of life and death. Before the commandment came, Paul's own self-assessment was one of being "alive". But after the commandment came, he realize that he was "dead". He speaks about his experience as a process of self discovery, as we see here.

I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.

So then, not only does the law inform Paul that coveting is wrong, but his attempt to obey the command enlightens him to the reality that a principle of evil is present in him. He wanted to do good, but found that he was evil.


But I would add that He found deliverance of these passions through Christ.

But he didn't. He places his deliverance as a future hope, not a present reality. As he says, "who hopes for what he sees?"


Being evil & being sinner are two different things.


How so?


As our life is in Christ & our affections are on Him & His affection, our fruit is obedience to righteousness.

Whatever sucesses we have in being obedient to righteousness, whether through the Holy Spirit or by our own effort, this does not negate the reality that sin is in us and we are evil people. If as you say, you briefly walk in the flesh, this only demonstrates that you (and I include myself) need the glorification of the body in order to be truly freed from sin.


Do you know what regeneration means?

Of course not. :)

What did you expect me to say? :)


I told you in my last posting.
How &/or why would you continue to miss-use the word.

I don't recall you giving a definition of regeneration. If you did I missed it. Regardless, the important thing is to understand the term the way the Bible uses it.

The word translated "regeneration" is used twice in the New Testament, once in Matthew and once in Titus and it simply means "rebirth" and relates to Jesus' statement in John's gospel where he says that a man must be born again or born from above.


Evil implies those who know they are bad and love it; they love to do bad things.


Not precisely. A person can be evil but not love it. A person can be evil inside, as Paul asserted about himself, but refrain from the practice of evil deeds. It's simply a matter of having a realistic self-assessment. Christians can say, "Yes, I walk by the spirit and avoid doing evil things. But I am certainly no different than that tax gatherer who calls out to God for mercy."


Maybe we only have different definitions of "evil".


Perhaps. When Paul says he is evil, he doesn't mean that he is wicked evil, but more like perverse, broken, an evil man that knows how to give good gifts to his children.


So, according to you, Paul was an evil/wicked Christian who was still sold under sin as he wrote Romans.
I Hope you don't teach.

I'm teaching right now. :)


So, Christians are no better of than the lost accept that our destiny is heaven & not hell.

Yes and no. On the one hand, as it pertains to our sin nature, we are no better off than any other person on earth. On the other hand, unlike those of the world, we know we are sinners. We have a realistic self concept. We acknowledge our sin, don't make excuses for it, and don't rationalize it. We pray to be free of it, and mourn over it. And when it's in our power, we are kind, generous, gentile, people walking in self-control and love. But we ain't fixed yet.


Paul's term for "flesh" is the sensual, animalistic part of our being
The flesh is not sentient, can not have a will.

This is where we disagree.


Not because of who he IS, but because of what he found in/with him, which is the untamed, the amoral, sensual, animalistic part of our being, which takes pleasure in what ever, good or bad, for it has no mind.


What he found within him is him. To say that our animalistic aspect is not part of us is to fall victim to the dualism of Greek thought.


I hate repeating myself, but I am trying to make a point.


I'm not having trouble following you. So you don't have to work that hard.


The flesh is nonsentient, but paul personifies it as the culpret.

Actually, the flesh IS sentient. :) You may be confusing sentience with sapience.


Think what you want, Christians are not wretches as wicked people, as contemptible men.
We might be having different definition of the term wretch


I suppose so. The modern use of the term has the connotation of being wicked and contemptible, but the Greek term of Paul's day refers to those people who are enduring physical or emotional toils and troubles. A guy with no arms is wretched. A man with leprosy and the consequent loneliness and alienation is a wretched man. A person who can't feed themselves, or go to the bathroom by themselves is wretched.

The term "wretched" is akin to "pitiful." When Paul says that he is a "wretched man" he means that he is one to be pitied, not because he is wicked, but because he wants to do good but finds that he does evil instead.

He wants to be freed from his body of death.


Could you elaborate?


Yes, Jesus walked the land announcing, "repent for the kingdom of God is at hand." The imperative asks two things of the hearer: 1) believe the kingdom of God is at hand, and 2) having realized that the kingdom is at hand -- repent.

The form of this pronouncement is like the following warning, "Stop! A car is coming." This imperative asks those listening to do two things. First, recognize the impending onset of a car bearing down on the listener, and second is a warning for the listener to cease all movement in the current direction. The imminent collision will be devastating.

Logically then, a person will not stop walking if a car is not actually coming. Who knows; maybe the warning is a joke, or the warning is coming from the radio or TV. Likewise, unless a person first becomes convinced that the kingdom of God is at hand, he is unlikely to repent.

It's not as if Jesus is simply talking about the final destiny of the faithful. He is certainly talking about that. But the issue between Jesus and Nicodemus is Nick's observations that Jesus is from God because of all the miracles that he did. The miracles become the pretext for Nick's belief that Jesus is a prophet from God. The subtext is that Jesus is one to be believed, because it is fitting and proper for us to accept the word of God's prophet. And if God's prophet says that it's time to repent, then we should repent.

And so, Jesus says that unless a man is born from above, he will not see the kingdom of God. And the reason why he will not see it, the reason why he will not find himself there, is because he didn't believe Jesus spoke for God and didn't repent when Jesus said it was time to repent. Unless a man is born again, he can't get from point A to point Z.

Yukerboy
Nov 22nd 2008, 03:46 AM
I don't think you will find a Reformed theologian who says that God will not save those who want to be saved.

Actually, if you really think it through, you will find that every reformed theologian would say that God saves everyone who wants to be saved.

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 03:54 AM
It would be an assumption to think this verse carries anything about the so called "fall of Adam"

Adam's sin only wounded himself, just as our own sins only wound ourselves.
Since Adam was restored after he sinned, but only unable to eat of the Tree of Life, one can not even suppose his sin effected his offspring.

Romans 8:20-21
This ''vanity''(temperaryness) along with the ''bondage of corruption'' is not because of Adam's sin and the curse of the ground that followed, but because of Him(God) who has subjected it in hope of the adoption, that is, the redemption of our bodies which is the glorious liberty of the children of God.
The flesh was never meant to be eternal.
If Adam had never sinned, he would have died a natural death if he never have eaten from the Tree of Life.
WE all die because the way to the Tree of Life is cut off so that we who know good and evil lest we put forth our hand, and have take also of the tree of life to eat and lived for ever(Gen 3:22)

Understand that which is made "with hands" is temporal, that which is "made without hands" is eternal.
Mark 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple (His body) that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
2Corinth 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle (body) were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Now, if Jesus had a Body wich is temporal (made with hands) as HE never sinned and not "totaly depraved", their is no reason to think that our body is temporal because of our sinfulness.

I very much disagree it was Adam sin that got the ball rolling. This is why we are born with a fallen body oblviously you do not belive in orgnial sin.
Also Adam and Eve were the only humans in the world that had free will to choose to obey God or sin that is why it is so important to know what Adam did. It would help you to do some research on why free will is number 1 on Gods list.
God bless
Randy
God bless
Randy