Y, unless you are couching part of your definition.
No some
were “sinners” as Christians you are not a “sinner” even if you do “sin” again, but you were a previous sinner. Sinners do not go to heaven.
I think your idea of "mature adults" is not Biblical.
There is the innocent, who have not sinned. Jonah 4: 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”
Babies, the unborn, and the mentally handicapped are not mature adults and cannot “do” things like believe, obey, speak, listen, and all the stuff which condemns us or goes toward our being saved. Everyone, I have found excludes these individuals and others from the commands of scriptures, but I am interested in how would you include them? Is the unborn baby condemned to hell for not confession Christ?
Therefore, this is where our paths diverge.
Does the nonbelieving sinner have “a” faith in something?
You are saying some “special” unique “saving faith” is only provided to
some people, but the fact all mature adults are told to believe suggests it is within their power to believe. Where in scripture do you fine this special faith being granted to only some?
False conclusion, as I explained before.
I am not “concluding” anything just restating a deferent way what you are describing. No you did not explain it away, tell me this: “Why is God not the deciding factor?”
If God is the deciding factor by providing only some with faith and others not having faith, than it would be His fault?
I've yet to get any of you to admit that this happens in the salvation, and specifically the regeneration of individuals.
Yes, God works in showering the person with tons of gifts, including the Spirit, eternal life, Godly type Love and the regeneration of the individual, BUT
the person made the choice to allow (accept) God to do it, with some refuse to accept.
Do you believe that regeneration requires God to act on a person in addition to the hearing of the gospel by the natural ears?
The hearing and believing (trusting their enemy’s Love) is what the person is doing. The other God is doing.
At this point, I would like to get a definition from you as to exactly what this "undeserved charity" is you are talking about.
The “undeserved charity” are the gifts God showers on the sinner who: wimps out, gives up and surrenders to his enemy (God) which include: being regenerated, Godly type Love, salvation, power, the indwelling Holy Spirit, a birthright to heaven, a purpose, being a child of God, a new family, and really everything good and wonderful with nothing left to give except actually living in heaven.
The way I read Paul is that if someone is God's enemy, he won't accept anything from Him.
Where does it say: “sinners cannot accept charity for selfish reasons”?
Very good! God is the epitome of this Love and Loves everyone like this, but not everyone humbly accepts God’s charity as charity and thus the transaction is never completed. A sinner is not Loved by God, because the sinner does not accept God’s Love as charity, but this is not God’s fault since God is doing His part perfectly. This can best be seen in the Loving forgiveness of the unaccepting servant, Matt.18.
But we aren't talking about common grace and love as a fruit of the Spirit.
The fruit of the Spirit translated often as “faith” from the same Greek word translated “faithfulness” would better be translated “Faithfulness” in Galatians 5:22 (NIV) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness,.
Godly type Love is very special and a fruit that grows with use.
You are right we have discussed: “How people obtain faith”, but we know all mature adults do have faith in somethings and some people, so the question would be better asked how do they obtain a “saving faith” or did God already gift you with the ability to take the faith you do have and direct it toward the Love of God and make it a saving faith?
The seed from the Spirit is not one you sow, it's one God sows.
Paul is talking about us sowing something and there are not three choices but only two.
currently soldiers are not allowed to accept gifts from the enemy because it is a conflict of interest.
Soldiers that surrender can take “gifts” (like food, clothes and shelter) from their enemy, but with God the gifts are unbelievably huge.
Here our paths diverge. You claim that God has to treat everyone alike in order to be just. But this is simply not true. See 1 Cor. 1 for an example. So if you insist that justice requires God to treat everyone the same, then I can't go with you here.
Please help me! I am not finding anything in 1 Cor.1 where God is treating anyone differently in the area that truly matters (salvation). No one is going to be able to say: I used my wisdom, smarts, knowledge, money, and connections to become a Christian. The lowliest mature adult on earth can but their trust in a benevolent Creator, so for the noble, powerful, rich, wise, educated to trust in a benevolent Creator is a humbling act which anyone can do (equality). Who has the advantage? Some people think my problems would be solved if I: was smarter, healthier, wiser, richer and had better connections, but those that have those things can also see the lack of security in those things, so who comes out ahead? The poor have the advantage of being more willing to accept pure charity, but the rich and smarter have the advantage of knowing they need something spiritual since carnal things do not solve their anxiety.
The problem with this idea is that justice and mercy are not the same, and do not have the same requirements for each, since mercy is an exception to justice. Justice is common, but mercy is uncommon. Therefore, God can be just and not have the same mercy on everyone alike.
I am not suggesting justice and mercy are the same, where did you get that idea? No, mercy is not an “exception to justice”! As a parent I want to be very merciful and yet very equal in justice toward my children. That does not mean I treat them exactly the same way every time, since they have different personalities and temperament. I am not perfect with this, but I am not God.
Think about this:
There is a, one of a kind, Tiffany vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.
Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair treatment? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?
Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?
What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?
Suppose it is not you that breaks the vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Tiffany vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So, was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?
Did your father show a merciful Love for the neighbor?
How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?
Was the neighbor forgiven and if not why not?
I need you to define "pure charity" in no uncertain terms, because I don't see what you're talking about, if not about the grace of God bestowed on individuals.
“Pure Charity” differs from lots of other so-called charitable acts. It is real charity (unconditional, undeserved and really sacrificial.
I disagree. The nature of mercy is that it's an exception to justice. This idea is taught in Rom. 9.
Romans 9
Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.
The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.
The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).
Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?
If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?
This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.
Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”
The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).
How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.
Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.
Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.
If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.
To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.
That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.
The Jews were given a higher position on earth, but with that position came added responsibility which they poorly handled. I do not see them in Rome having any advantage over the gentile Christians, but what do you think?
I disagree. Paul is writing to people who may or may not be Christians, as I explained before. Jesus would agree, seeing He gave us the parable of the wheat/tares and others.
The tares were not Christians and Paul is addressing only Christians and not just anyone who shows up at the meeting place.
So, your idea that an enemy of God is able to "humbly accept pure charity" is IMO pure nonsense.
You are not present good scripture support for your conclusion that: sinner cannot "humbly accept pure charity", like we are all called upon to do. It is not just to call upon us to do something we cannot make happen? Yes, we will need help to do the stuff, but that help is up to us allowing God to help us.