Regeneration before or after saving faith

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The words 'you should believe', as also 'suffer' in Greek (Philipians 1:39) are verbs that will grammatically connect to the proper actor based on their spelling and convey the proper intent that God breathed into Paul.

In this particular case, the phrase in your translation 'you should believe' - is the present, active infinitive - πιστεύειν. The infinitive takes away any sense of past or present tense, thus the label of "infinitive." In essence it means that as long as we're alive, we're expected to do these things.

Were your interpretation how one should read it, that's not the form of the verb that would have been used there. It would have been a passive or middle form of the verb indicating that person was receiving the action. And that word 'should' in your translation implies that the verb used was in the subjunctive mood. But it wasn't. The new king James version does not inject that word, nor does the NASB. I haven't looked at every translation.

The text is quite clear that it is the person (first person singular) who is to believe and suffer, not that he is given the suffering or belief. There is a perfectly grammatical way to say that in Greek without requiring an interpretation of the intent as is sometimes the case in modern English. And in this case, he used the first person form and a pronoun (αυτον) 'he', to emphasize that each individual was expected to perform the action. He didn't grant these things to all or 'you' plural, but to each person.

What we're given are the commands to believe and suffer.



Only if he's an unjust, mocking God. If God gives us commands that we cannot obey and then holds us accountable because he didn't offer the required 'grace' that only he can provide, he's partial and unjust. God argues against that view throughout his scriptures. He's not only just, he calls us to use his standard by which we're to live our life.

If God's standard is that he can ask us to do what we're incapable of doing and then find fault with us when we do not do it, then we are allowed also to use that standard of justice in our lives. Nay, we're COMMANDED to be that arbitrary and unjust.



I am saying just that. If we are born "in sin" - ie; guilty of Adam's sin, and also incapable of obeying God, then he indeed made us that way, and he arbitrarily gives some people the magical power to obey and others he withholds that power. Yet he still holds everyone accountable to the same law.

At least that is how that original sin an magic grace doctrine would have us believe. Paul was not saying that at all. In fact, he was saying that we cannot come to that conclusion because it's absurd.

The vessels come out of the factory all "destined" for honor. They are 'refitted' not created, for dishonor. And that is based on their own obedience, not his predestined design for them to be disobedient. Paul mocked the idea that one would blame God for making him disobedient. He wasn't saying that to question the rationale of making a person out of the gate evil, was something we were not allowed to do, he's already told us that God is impartial. (2:11).

To create some vessels destined for dishonor and some for dishonor, is the very definition of partiality. Thus to read Paul's words as saying God is partial and we're not to question that, is to ignore what was already set up as foundational to his message. (For there is no partiality with God).

When it says that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" it is the equivalent of saying that Pharaoh was offended by God's words. It is the words themselves and Pharaoh's own mind that hardened Pharaoh's heart. God did not need Pharaoh's heart to be hardened to show his glory. Had Pharaoh let the people of Israel leave Egypt at Moses' first utterance, God's glory would have just as perfectly been demonstrated.

Pharaoh made the choice to be offended and God led the people out of Egypt in SPITE of Pharaoh's refusal.





Al I agree with most of what you are saying but might add:

Just talking about mature adults:

Any one sin at a particular time can be avoided with human efforts, but humans cannot avoid all sins all the time with just their human ability. This still makes them responsible for every sin they commit, but also points out the need for greater than human power. Which can go all the way back to Adam and Eve needing more then what they had, but also brings up the question, is it God’s fault humans were not given the power needed to begin with?

If humans could not be created with this power then there would be a reason for them not to have the power, but that also means there are somethings even God cannot do, impossible things, like: “God cannot just make a clone of Christ, because Christ is not a “made” being and has lived forever, so God cannot just create another.”

Everything is driven by the objective.

God is wanting us to be like Himself in that we have a Godly type Love, since He is Love, we become like He is. The problem is this Love is not instinctive (a knee jerk reaction) and a love like that would be robotic. God cannot force the Love upon us like a shotgun wedding with Him holding the shotgun, so it has to be the result of a free will choice and that choice has to do with our accepting God’s Love in the form of forgiveness as pure charity. “…he who is forgiven much Loves much…”, so understanding and accepting God’s forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt allows us to automatically gain an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love).

Sin itself is not the real problem, since we all sin, but the problem is with humbly accepting God’s forgiveness.

You also heavily talk about Ro. 9 which I have repeatedly taught to adults so here is a brief on it:

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.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Al I agree with most of what you are saying but might add:

Just talking about mature adults:

Any one sin at a particular time can be avoided with human efforts, but humans cannot avoid all sins all the time with just their human ability. This still makes them responsible for every sin they commit, but also points out the need for greater than human power. Which can go all the way back to Adam and Eve needing more then what they had, but also brings up the question, is it God’s fault humans were not given the power needed to begin with?

Well, what I think about this particular topic is that we need God. But he gives us plenty of instructions on the how we can avoid temptations. In fact, he says that he has given us everything we need to avoid temptation, that we'll never be tempted beyond our abilities. Seems like this passage pretty much smashes any idea that we're incapable of avoiding sin:

13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide an escape, so that you can stand up under it.

We need God for this reason.

God's word, when we hear and accept it, can turn our hearts from stone to flesh, and his word also can teach us how not to sin. Paul tells us that it is in the constant renewing of our minds that we do the right thing.

My response here is not to dispute, but to clarify my beliefs to you. I think we're on the same page. The vessels were "refitted" not created for destruction.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well, what I think about this particular topic is that we need God. But he gives us plenty of instructions on the how we can avoid temptations. In fact, he says that he has given us everything we need to avoid temptation, that we'll never be tempted beyond our abilities. Seems like this passage pretty much smashes any idea that we're incapable of avoiding sin:

13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide an escape, so that you can stand up under it.

We need God for this reason.

God's word, when we hear and accept it, can turn our hearts from stone to flesh, and his word also can teach us how not to sin. Paul tells us that it is in the constant renewing of our minds that we do the right thing.

My response here is not to dispute, but to clarify my beliefs to you. I think we're on the same page. The vessels were "refitted" not created for destruction.

1 Cor. 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

This is Paul talking to Christians and Paul would not have to be addressing all people including non-Christians. This truism would definitely apply to all Christians, who have the power found in Godly type Love and the indwelling Holy Spirit to not have to sin again, but the non-Christian does not have Godly type Love nor the indwelling Holy Spirit, so can they keep from sinning again.

You can say: “God is asking all people not to sin”, so we must have the power to not sin, but God could ask that of all people and make the Spirit and Godly type love available to all of us, yet that does not mean we all have the power right now.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
1 Cor. 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

He's telling these Christians that their temptations are the same temptations that even non-Christians are subject to. Not special, irresistible temptations.

God told Cain that he was capable of ruling over sin.

Genesis 4
6 So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is [d]for you, but you should rule over it.”

That's God telling Cain, the son of Adam, that he was capable of ruling over sin and that it was his responsibility to do it. Jesus called Abel "righteous."

Matthew 23
35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Were Adam's sin something that made these two men "sin-nature" beings, incapable of resisting temptation to sin, both the father and Jesus are misleading people. And it would make God unjust for holding them accountable for their actions.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
He's telling these Christians that their temptations are the same temptations that even non-Christians are subject to. Not special, irresistible temptations.

Again, you can be heald accountable for every sin you have done as a nonbeliever, because you can keep from doing any one sin at one time, but you do not have the power to keep from all sins at all times.

All mature adults have sinned or will sin.

Adam and Eve might have kept from sinning if the tree of knowledge was ugly gave you only the ability to spit ten feet, smelled bad, and was on top of a high steep cliff.

Everything goes back to man’s objective which is not to: “never ever sin”.

God does not personally want satan roaming the earth, death, hell, tragedies of all kinds, Christ to go to cross, and our sinning, but God will allow or cause these things to happen in order to help us fulfill our earthly objective.

Our mission statement goes like: “Love God (and secondly others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy”, which requires a very powerful, unique, way beyond human ability LOVE.

He first part of our objective is thus obtaining this Godly type Love.

I explained in my post 441 what Love we are talking about, but much more can be said (books have been written on Godly type Love).

The only way I see humans can obtaining this Love is by what Jesus taught us “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…”, but that requires us being forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt which only sin can produce. Sin thus has purpose for the unbeliever sinner and thus God has allowed us to do what He really does not want us to do and that is sin.

God told Cain that he was capable of ruling over sin.

Genesis 4
6 So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is [d]for you, but you should rule over it.”

That's God telling Cain, the son of Adam, that he was capable of ruling over sin and that it was his responsibility to do it. Jesus called Abel "righteous."

Some people are called righteous in the OT, but did any not sin?

Like I say you can keep from any one sin at one time, but not all sins at all times.

Could Cain rule over sin the same as Christ could rule over sin and if not why not? Did Cain have deity dwelling within himself and have this Godly type Love?

Matthew 23
35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Were Adam's sin something that made these two men "sin-nature" beings, incapable of resisting temptation to sin, both the father and Jesus are misleading people. And it would make God unjust for holding them accountable for their actions.

The Bible does not even call Adam and Eve’s sinning a “fall” and it does not say their “nature” changed but says they had knowledge of good and evil. Is knowledge bad in and of itself?

All mature adults sin, but it is not Adam and Eve’s fault.

If Abel after sinning sought out God’s forgiveness and humbly accepted God’s forgiveness, he would have had a Godly type Love and thus could be righteous, but not perfect like Christ was perfect.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Again, you can be heald accountable for every sin you have done as a nonbeliever, because you can keep from doing any one sin at one time, but you do not have the power to keep from all sins at all times.

Christians are held accountable for their sins too.

Adam and Eve might have kept from sinning if the tree of knowledge was ugly gave you only the ability to spit ten feet, smelled bad, and was on top of a high steep cliff.

Adam and Eve already had some knowledge of good and evil. They knew what commands they were under and when they disobeyed, they would be held accountable. (On that day you will surely die.) The fruit of the tree gave them all knowledge of good and evil, thus their attempt to self-cover for their nakedness. It was new knowledge that they obtained though not necessarily the knowledge about how they were to remedy it. They tried to cover their sin using their own devices (leaves) but God covered them through the sacrifice of animals.
Everything goes back to man’s objective which is not to: “never ever sin”.

Which is simply "lawlessness" or disobeying God.

Some people are called righteous in the OT, but did any not sin?

The bible doesn't tell us that. What it says about Elizabeth and Zachariah is that they followed the law that was in place. That law had a remedy for sin and we assume that when they sinned, they followed the prescription for that. But it doesn't say they sinned. It's an inference because Christ was the only one who perfectly followed the law.
Like I say you can keep from any one sin at one time, but not all sins at all times.

Paul says that we do not have to sin and that God always gives us a way out which we can stand under.

Could Cain rule over sin the same as Christ could rule over sin and if not why not? Did Cain have deity dwelling within himself and have this Godly type Love?

If he didn't have the ability to rule over sin, then God was lying to him, wasn't he? Christ was subjected to the same temptations as we were. If he wasn't subject to them, then there wasn't anything remarkable in his perfect obedience.

The Bible does not even call Adam and Eve’s sinning a “fall” and it does not say their “nature” changed but says they had knowledge of good and evil. Is knowledge bad in and of itself?

It's not bad, but it makes you aware of what is bad. Jesus said that if he hadn't come and preached to the Pharisees, they wouldn't have had sin.

All mature adults sin, but it is not Adam and Eve’s fault.

Agreed.
If Abel after sinning sought out God’s forgiveness and humbly accepted God’s forgiveness, he would have had a Godly type Love and thus could be righteous, but not perfect like Christ was perfect.

We're made perfect through Christ. All were made perfect through God when they obeyed his commands, if we say that Righteousness - the righteousness that God accounts to us when we're obedient - is "perfection."

Jesus was able to perfectly obey and came down here and said "follow me." I think that there is an implication, since we know he was also subjected to temptation, that following him means it is possible. When we stumble, there is a way to be made perfect in him as John wrote in his first letter. To follow Jesus is to strive for perfection and rule over sin just as he did. It can't be done without him. We can't achieve perfection without Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Yesha

Westminster Standards
Jun 25, 2007
231
54
Connecticut
✟17,001.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
It's not an inference. Commands are given or granted. The verbs there indicate that these are things were given to do.

As are gifts! Surely we cannot forget that!

In the pocket lexicon I have access to, the lemma charizomai (χαρίζομαι) is used to mean: (a) to graciously confer, (b) to pardon, to forgive; (c) to show kindness to. I do not see a sense in which charizomai is used in the context of commanding something, rather it is used to indicate forgiveness, favor, giving, etc.

I found four instances in the Scriptures in which charizomai is used explicitly in the passive voice, including Philippians 1:29:

But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted (charisthenai = χαρισθῆναι) to you, - Acts 3:14 (ESV)

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given (charisthenta = χαρισθέντα) us by God. - 1 Corinthians 2:12 (ESV)

For it has been granted (echaristhe = ἐχαρίσθη) to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, - Philippians 1:29 (ESV)


At the same time, prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping that through your prayers I will be graciously given (charisthesomai = χαρισθήσομαι) to you. - Philemon 22 (ESV)

I see no context in these verses in which a command is being implied by the passive construction. They indicate that something is being received graciously.

What is precisely the construction is that there is no passive tense there. We can sometimes read in English a passive construction because our verbs do not have the same nuances as the Greek verbs do. We typically add 'ing' or change the word order to do that. Greek verbs have many different forms that tell us exactly who the actor is and if that actor is receiving the action or doing the action. In this case, it is the person given or granted the responsibility who performs the action.

Al, are you saying that echaristhe (ἐχαρίσθη) is not in the passive in this verse? My interlinear says that it is. Maybe I am misunderstanding your reference.

Right. And it is for us 'to believe' - or 'to suffer' - the infinitives in the in indicative mood pushing the action onto us to do.

I thought the infinitive was a verbal noun form that has no person or mood? Here they seem to function to indicate the result of the gracious granting of God.

I messed that up when I was reading my interlinear. Apologies. I was reading it as 'that he' should suffer. You plural. As in the people he was speaking to.

No worries! :)

It doesn't have to be imperative to be a command. Though the imperative is often a command, the indicative in this case equally conveys a command. We are 'to believe' and 'to suffer.'

Perhaps it would be helpful to reference other Biblical commentators on this passage.

Matthew Henry’s Complete Bible Commentary
Here are two precious gifts given, and both on the behalf of Christ:—1. To believe in him. Faith is God’s gift on the behalf of Christ, who purchased for us not only the blessedness which is the object of faith, but the grace of faith itself: the ability or disposition to believe is from God. 2. To suffer for the sake of Christ is a valuable gift too: it is a great honour and a great advantage; for we may be very serviceable to the glory of God, which is the end of our creation, and encourage and confirm the faith of others. And there is a great reward attending it too: Blessed are you when men shall persecute you, for great is your reward in heaven, Matt. 5:11, 12. And, if we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him, 2 Tim. 2:12. If we suffer reproach and loss for Christ, we are to reckon it a great gift, and prize it accordingly, always provided we behave under our sufferings with the genuine temper of martyrs and confessors

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For—rather, a proof that this is an evident token from God of your salvation, “Because,” &c.

it is given—Greek, “it has been granted as a favor,” or “gift of grace.” Faith is the gift of God (Eph 2:8), not wrought in the soul by the will of man, but by the Holy Ghost (Jn 1:12, 13).

believe on him—“To believe Him,” would merely mean to believe He speaks the truth. “To believe on Him,” is to believe in, and trust through, Him to obtain eternal salvation. Suffering for Christ is not only not a mark of God’s anger, but a gift of His grace.

The New Bible Commentary
Behind the words it has been granted is the thought of a gift of grace, as for Christians it is a privilege to believe but also (by that strange contradiction of the world’s standards) to suffer for Christ (cf. Mt. 5:11–12; Acts 5:41).

The Bible Knowledge Commentary
So that being opposed would not come as a surprise, he gave them a reminder. Both believing on Christ and suffering for Him had been granted to them (v. 29). Suffering for Christ was not to be considered accidental or a divine punishment. Paul referred to a kind of suffering that was really a sign of God’s favor. The Greek word echaristhē, translated “granted,” is derived from a word which means “grace” or “favor.” Believing on Christ and suffering for Him are both associated with God’s grace.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary
For unto you it is given; he adds a further argument to move them unto that he had exhorted, from God’s freely bestowing, of his mere grace, what he had required of them.

In the behalf of Christ; upon the account of Christ’s merit and mediation; not that they could have either evangelical faith, or patience, by virtue of their own strength, Philippians 4:13.

Not only to believe on him; that they did not only believe Christ, but believe on him, was not from any power of their own, John 6:37,44, but of God’s free gift, Ephesians 2:8, as they had an instance amongst them in Lydia, Acts 16:14; unto her and others was this victorious grace of faith freely given by the hearing of the word, which was not unto many others that heard, Matthew 13:11 2 Thessalonians 3:2 Titus 1:1; and as the grace itself was given, so was the exercise of it.

But also to suffer for his sake; upon the account of Christ, patience was given; so that to suffer, here, doth not only import a power to suffer, but actual suffering; not only the habit of faith, but the act of believing, even as the fruits of trees at the first creation were produced, as well as the trees which had a power to bear them: wherefore, if, by the grace of God, and Spirit of faith, they were empowered actually to believe, Mark 9:24 1 Corinthians 15:10 2 Corinthians 4:13, having trust through Christ God-ward, 2 Corinthians 3:4; and upon the same account they were continually enabled to suffer, not simply, but in bearing testimony to Christ, Acts 5:41 1 Peter 3:14 4:16; they might be of good comfort and courage, to the daunting of their adversaries.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
not only to believe in him; for faith in Christ, which is not merely believing that he is the Christ, and all that is said of him, or all that he himself says, but is a seeing of the Son, a going to him, receiving, embracing, leaning, relying, and living upon him, as God's salvation, is a pure gift of grace; it is not in nature, nor in every man, and in whom it is, it is not of themselves, it is the gift of God; the first implantation of it, all its acts and exercise, its increase, and the performance of it at last with power, are all owing to the grace of God; and this is only given to the elect, for it is a distinguishing gift; it is given to them, and them alone, and, therefore called the faith of God's elect:

but also to suffer for his sake; for the sake of Christ personal; for the sake of Christ mystical, for his body's sake the church; for the sake of his Gospel, and for the sake of his cause and interest in the world: now to suffer in name and character, in estate or person, not as an evildoer, but as a Christian, is a gift of God, as faith in Christ is; all the sufferings of the saints are appointed by God; their being called forth to suffer shame for the sake of Christ, is an high honour conferred upon them; all the grace and strength by which they are supported under sufferings for Christ are given to them; and all the glory consequent upon them is not merited by them, which are by no meant to be compared with it, but is the free gift of God through Christ. The same persons to whom it is given to believe in Christ, to them it is given to suffer for him; and they all do in some shape or another, though some more, others less; yet all are partakers of sufferings for Christ, and so are conformed to him their head, and hereby enter the kingdom: now all this is said, as containing so many reasons to encourage believers to have their conversation as becomes the Gospel of Christ, by a steady adherence to it, and a joint contention and striving for it, without being intimidated by their enemies.

Adam didn't plunge us into sin ourselves. He brought disobedience into the world and we sinned afterward. We aren't charged with his sin as Paul lets us know specifically saying that we were sinners even though we didn't commit the same exact sin. We did not commit the 'likeness of his sin,' we committed our own sins.

We're judged by our own actions, not Adam's. And were it true that there are some who sin because they are predestined to do this, then God's glory is magnified in sin. That's just wrong. Pharaoh didn't glorify God through his disobedience. God accomplished his own will in spite of Pharaoh's disobedience and his glory was magnified because of the completion of his will, not because Pharaoh disobeyed him.

We're not "in sin" unless we're disobedient. We're not born in sin.

Al, I am curious to know if you do not believe we are born with a sinful nature? Are you suggesting that we are free of sin until we sin willfully?

If we're unable, then there is no just cause to hold us accountable. There's nothing wrong with us if we're unable to obey his commands. We're just doing what we were created to do, if we were created with no capability of obeying. That wouldn't be just at all. God calls us to mimic his definition of justness. And arbitrary and capricious judgement is excluded from that definition.

If I caged up a man in his driveway and told him that he would be imprisoned forever if he didn't mow the lawn, I would be enforcing the same so-called justness attributed to God. He can't get out of that cage and mow the lawn unless I open it. If I refuse to open the cage so that he can mow the lawn and then apply the punishment, I am nothing but a tyrant.

All non-Biblical analogies fail to reveal the truth of God’s Word at some point. You would of course be unjust for doing this because God did not command you to treat your neighbor in this manner.

What we often forget is that God did not create man unable to obey him. Adam is the one who disobeyed God willingly and brought humanity under the curse of sin and death. God is not required to redeem anyone of Adam’s posterity. He does so solely by grace for the glory of his name.

When we sin.

But Paul says that we are children of wrath by nature. He does not suggest that we assume this nature by sinning, rather we are born with it.

How were Elizabeth and Zacharias said, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to be blameless under the law? Paul is telling the Romans that they cannot be justified by a law that is no longer in effect, not that the law NEVER justified people. Later he will tell them that he himself was blameless under the law. While it was in effect, obedience to it justified people.

Well, he doesn't do that. But if he did, he would be a liar and a tyrant. He teaches us against that sort of "justness". It's not just. Jesus said that if he hadn't come and spoken to the Pharisees, they wouldn't even have sin.

Al, do you believe that justification through the law was ever possible?
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
As are gifts! Surely we cannot forget that!

The commands ARE gifts. Surely we cannot forget that commands which save you, works which you never could have invented yourself, are the gift of God and evidence of his grace towards us.

Al, do you believe that justification through the law was ever possible?

Of course it was. Paul's preaching against it justifying Christians was that the law was made obsolete. The Jews of that time believed that it was the ONLY way EVER to justify somebody. Paul's arguments in Romans was to show that that thinking was in error. Abraham was justified without the law. It didn't even exist back then. So it would be silly to think that it would be impossible to be justified outside the law of Moses. Faith in God is how anyone is justified even when the law of Moses was in place. But if you were under the law, it wasn't faith alone, it was obedience to those statutes.

5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.

These two were justified through their faith and obedience to the law of Moses. If they weren't then Luke was mistaken.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Christians are held accountable for their sins too.
Even more so.


Adam and Eve already had some knowledge of good and evil. They knew what commands they were under and when they disobeyed, they would be held accountable. (On that day you will surely die.) The fruit of the tree gave them all knowledge of good and evil, thus their attempt to self-cover for their nakedness. It was new knowledge that they obtained though not necessarily the knowledge about how they were to remedy it. They tried to cover their sin using their own devices (leaves) but God covered them through the sacrifice of animals.
I would say Adam and Eve new good but might not distinguish it from just life, but did not know “evil”, yet know right and wrong. It is wrong to play in the street, but it is not evil to play in the street. It was wrong to eat from the tree, with the evil being disobedience to God’s commands, but that was not what God put forth as the sin since it was the actual eating of the tree.
Which is simply "lawlessness" or disobeying God.
Not sure what you are saying here?

The bible doesn't tell us that. What it says about Elizabeth and Zachariah is that they followed the law that was in place. That law had a remedy for sin and we assume that when they sinned, they followed the prescription for that. But it doesn't say they sinned. It's an inference because Christ was the only one who perfectly followed the law.
The Old Law did not have a “remedy” for rebellious disobedience directly against God unless being killed or banished is the remedy you are talking about.

Galatians 2:16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Only Christ’s obedience to the Law would allow Him to stand before God justified by the Law.
Paul says that we do not have to sin and that God always gives us a way out which we can stand under.
Paul is talking to Christians; non-Christians would not be reading his letter.
If he didn't have the ability to rule over sin, then God was lying to him, wasn't he? Christ was subjected to the same temptations as we were. If he wasn't subject to them, then there wasn't anything remarkable in his perfect obedience.
Cain under his own power could not “rule over sin”, but if he had turned to God, prior to killing Abel, asking for forgiveness and humbly accepting God’s forgiveness he would have had Love to obey.

If God told you to fly a plane across the country, that does not mean you can do it without going through some training first.

God tells us to stop sinning, but that does not mean we can stop with our existing ability, but we can with help which comes from seeking and accepting that help, so is God lying?



We're made perfect through Christ. All were made perfect through God when they obeyed his commands, if we say that Righteousness - the righteousness that God accounts to us when we're obedient - is "perfection."
We are to be one with God and other Christians as Christ is one with God, so how one is that?

Jesus was able to perfectly obey and came down here and said "follow me." I think that there is an implication, since we know he was also subjected to temptation, that following him means it is possible. When we stumble, there is a way to be made perfect in him as John wrote in his first letter. To follow Jesus is to strive for perfection and rule over sin just as he did. It can't be done without him. We can't achieve perfection without Christ.
We need Godly type Love and the indwelling Spirit of Christ unquenched.
 
Upvote 0

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe the notion that faith is a gift we are given in order to be saved. I do believe we can ask for faith once we are saved and God will give us greater faith, but the faith for salvation must be a choice that is made by the believer. That much is clear from scripture.

There is only one verse in the Bible which vaguely supports the notion that God gives the believer faith, and it is hotly disputed because it is anything but clear on that topic.

[Eph 2:7-8 NASB] 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.​

The "it" in the phrase "it is the gift of God" is the grace by which you have been saved (the context of the previous verse). "It" is not referring to faith.

Since describing the sequence of salvation is not the point to this verse, we should not make it the point of the passage as the Calvinists do. There are other verses that deal explicity with the sequence of salvation that are much more salient to this point;

[Eph 1:13-14 NASB] 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of [God's own] possession, to the praise of His glory.

[Act 11:16-17 NASB] 16 "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as [He gave] to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"​

These passages deal explicitly with the sequence. It says that the gift of the Holy Spirit comes AFTER faith, it does not precede faith. While the sequence is not explicitly addressed in Eph 2:8, it is explicit in these two passages. Therefore, on the question of the order of the sequence, Eph 2:8 should not be used for that purpose. Using Ephesians 2:8 in this way (as Calvinists do, and base their theology on it) is completely unwarranted by the text. In fact, the context of Ephesians 2:8 is Ephesians 1:13 which does deal with the sequence. Therefore, the reader of Ephesians 2:8 should have that proper sequence in mind when reading Ephesians 2:8 and not interpret Eph 2:8 to have the opposite sequence to the one previously specified in Eph 1:13-14.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Old Law did not have a “remedy” for rebellious disobedience directly against God unless being killed or banished is the remedy you are talking about.

Galatians 2:16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

No one could be justified by a law that had been nailed to the cross. The words he's delivering there are in the present active, not past. He doesn't say here that a person "was not" in the past justified. As he later explains in Hebrews, that law was made obsolete. He also doesn't say here that no one was EVER justified by the law. For the Jews, it was the only way to be justified while it was in effect. Luke says that Zacharais and Elizabeth were made righteous through their obedience to it. How do we reconcile that except to conclude that the law through one's faith justified him while it was in effect?

David murdered a man and committed adultery. He was forgiven. We're not told that he ended up offering a sacrifice. But we do know that God put away his sin after he showed repentance. Nathan came and gave him the parable to show him his error. David was cut to the heart and it was then that he delivered the message that God would forgive him. There wasn't a sacrifice that explicitly said such sins could be covered. The trespass offering is the closest thing because the prescription for those sins was execution and stoning respectively.

Only Christ’s obedience to the Law would allow Him to stand before God justified by the Law.

Jesus' obedience to the law was perfect. He didn't sin and didn't require any sacrifices in order to be justified. He also perfectly obeyed the new covenant in its establishment.

Paul is talking to Christians; non-Christians would not be reading his letter.

But he told those Christians that the temptations they suffered were common to all men. Non Christians will read and have read that letter.

Cain under his own power could not “rule over sin”, but if he had turned to God, prior to killing Abel, asking for forgiveness and humbly accepting God’s forgiveness he would have had Love to obey.

God did not tell him there was anything special he needed to rule over sin. He told him he should rule over it. Those words should have been enough. There were obviously "laws" at that time since he offered a sacrifice that God didn't respect. God also told him, "7 If you do well, will you not be accepted?"

Where is the implication that God had to make it possible for him to obey? Clearly he expected that he already had all of the capability required to follow his commands.
If God told you to fly a plane across the country, that does not mean you can do it without going through some training first.

But if he told me I was able to, explicitly, I'd believe him.

God tells us to stop sinning, but that does not mean we can stop with our existing ability, but we can with help which comes from seeking and accepting that help, so is God lying?

If he told Cain he could and should rule over sin but he didn't have the actual ability to do so, that would be a lie wouldn't it? But it is impossible for God to lie, so we either accept that what he told Cain is true or we believe he can lie. A lie by omission is still a lie.
We are to be one with God and other Christians as Christ is one with God, so how one is that?

God is light and there is no darkness in him, not even one. The way we are one with God is to keep from sinning. And if we do sin, we confess that sin to God and he is faithful to forgive us. That's our need. (1 John). Only God can forgive us of our sin.
We need Godly type Love and the indwelling Spirit of Christ unquenched.

Godly love, according to John is to obey God. We need God, we need his spirit. But God made us all with the ability to obey him. Typically a man chooses to obey his own desire rather than God. That's not an incapacity it's a learned behavior in which conscience plays a huge part. Once we fall into that pattern, we're on a track that's hard to get off. That's why Paul stressed the conscience. We're not to mess with another person's conscience or ours. Training it is "the renewing of the mind." Even telling a person that he is in error in being overly strict in his behavior, is a sin. We don't tell people they are free to do things their conscience tells them is wrong. We let them grow in Christ and learn for themselves and train their own conscience lest we teach error and they train their conscience to run contrary to Christ's law. The spirit is in the words.

"The words I tell you are spirit and they are life."
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't believe the notion that faith is a gift we are given in order to be saved. I do believe we can ask for faith once we are saved and God will give us greater faith, but the faith for salvation must be a choice that is made by the believer. That much is clear from scripture.

There is only one verse in the Bible which vaguely supports the notion that God gives the believer faith, and it is hotly disputed because it is anything but clear on that topic.

[Eph 2:7-8 NASB] 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast

Besides which, a lot of people miss the language of verses 1-6 which is telling them that they were saved when they were baptized - a work they were commanded to do. Paul is associating that work with grace and salvation, thus the phrase, "not of works" is not talking about all works, but as he says later, works "of yourselves." They may have done the work, but it was God who made it effective and "gave" it to them to do. It wasn't a work "of yourselves." Good works that we make up and expect God to honor are excluded even if they might coincide with what Christ taught. ("Depart from me, I never knew you").


The "it" in the phrase "it is the gift of God" is the grace by which you have been saved (the context of the previous verse). "It" is not referring to faith.

If very well could be. The word "faith" there is not a verb but a noun. So even if "it" is referring to faith, it's not talking about an act of belief but of the system of faith established by Christ.

There are other verses that deal explicity with the sequence of salvation that are much more salient to this point;

[Eph 1:13-14 NASB] 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of [God's own] possession, to the praise of His glory.

[Act 11:16-17 NASB] 16 "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as [He gave] to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"​

These passages deal explicitly with the sequence. It says that the gift of the Holy Spirit comes AFTER faith, it does not precede faith. While the sequence is not explicitly addressed in Eph 2:8, it is explicit in these two passages. Therefore, on the question of the order of the sequence, Eph 2:8 should not be used for that purpose. Using Ephesians 2:8 in this way (as Calvinists do, and base their theology on it) is completely unwarranted by the text. In fact, the context of Ephesians 2:8 is Ephesians 1:13 which does deal with the sequence. Therefore, the reader of Ephesians 2:8 should have that proper sequence in mind when reading Ephesians 2:8 and not interpret Eph 2:8 to have the opposite sequence to the one previously specified in Eph 1:13-14.

Great point. I like this one also which is pretty much irrefutable as to the order in which things occur.

Acts 5
32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.

Clearly here, the Spirit is not given to the disobedient which then gives them the special magical power required to produce obedience. The Spirit is given AFTER obedience, not before.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No one could be justified by a law that had been nailed to the cross. The words he's delivering there are in the present active, not past. He doesn't say here that a person "was not" in the past justified. As he later explains in Hebrews, that law was made obsolete. He also doesn't say here that no one was EVER justified by the law. For the Jews, it was the only way to be justified while it was in effect. Luke says that Zacharais and Elizabeth were made righteous through their obedience to it. How do we reconcile that except to conclude that the law through one's faith justified him while it was in effect?
You do good to point out my quote is from after the Law was nailed to the cross.

Being “justified” before God is not the same thing as being “righteous”. Paul really emphasizes the fact that Christians are now “justified” before God when talking with Jewish Christians especially, since prior to Christ, no one previously in the Old Testament was described as being “justified” before God (although, I feel they were, “justified”, it is not used to describe any of those in the Old Testament). Righteous is used to describe lots of people even Abraham felt he could find 10 righteous people in Sodom.

Actually, trying to follow a Law, where you mentally had to continuously keep from mentally coveting, was impossible, but you could still be or become righteous (doing the right thing).

The way the Jews could be justified before God was not through the “Law”, but like the tax collector in the Temple: “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner’.” He is the only non-Christian described as being justified before God.
David murdered a man and committed adultery. He was forgiven. We're not told that he ended up offering a sacrifice. But we do know that God put away his sin after he showed repentance. Nathan came and gave him the parable to show him his error. David was cut to the heart and it was then that he delivered the message that God would forgive him. There wasn't a sacrifice that explicitly said such sins could be covered. The trespass offering is the closest thing because the prescription for those sins was execution and stoning respectively.
There was “NO” sacrifice at the time for what David did unless you’re talking about David giving his own life.

But he told those Christians that the temptations they suffered were common to all men. Non Christians will read and have read that letter.
We are having some disconnect here? Temptation come to everyone the same, so for the non-Christian to overcome these temptations completely he must first become a Christian?

If non-Christians read this letter sometime afterwards, they would see how they could overcome all their temptations by becoming a Christian and not that they had the power then.

God did not tell him there was anything special he needed to rule over sin. He told him he should rule over it. Those words should have been enough. There were obviously "laws" at that time since he offered a sacrifice that God didn't respect. God also told him, "7 If you do well, will you not be accepted?"
We do not know what Cain was taught, but Adam and Eve would have been excellent potential teachers raised to adulthood (programmed) by the best parent and Cain certainly had the example of his brother.

But if he told me I was able to, explicitly, I'd believe him.
Let us say: God has told you to: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and I believe you can do that, but it will not be you alone. You just have to make one disciple per year (who becomes like yourself, which is like Christ) for 36 years and you run out of people on earth to be part of your little group and the little groups developed by those you discipled and their discipled.

If he told Cain he could and should rule over sin but he didn't have the actual ability to do so, that would be a lie wouldn't it? But it is impossible for God to lie, so we either accept that what he told Cain is true or we believe he can lie. A lie by omission is still a lie.
No, it would not be a lie for God to tell Cain: “rule over sin”, since Cain can do that, if Cain accepts God’s help.
God is light and there is no darkness in him, not even one. The way we are one with God is to keep from sinning. And if we do sin, we confess that sin to God and he is faithful to forgive us. That's our need. (1 John). Only God can forgive us of our sin.


Godly love, according to John is to obey God. We need God, we need his spirit. But God made us all with the ability to obey him. Typically a man chooses to obey his own desire rather than God. That's not an incapacity it's a learned behavior in which conscience plays a huge part. Once we fall into that pattern, we're on a track that's hard to get off. That's why Paul stressed the conscience. We're not to mess with another person's conscience or ours. Training it is "the renewing of the mind." Even telling a person that he is in error in being overly strict in his behavior, is a sin. We don't tell people they are free to do things their conscience tells them is wrong. We let them grow in Christ and learn for themselves and train their own conscience lest we teach error and they train their conscience to run contrary to Christ's law. The spirit is in the words.
No. In order to obey God you must first Love God.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Being “justified” before God is not the same thing as being “righteous”. Paul really emphasizes the fact that Christians are now “justified” before God when talking with Jewish Christians especially, since prior to Christ, no one previously in the Old Testament was described as being “justified” before God (although, I feel they were, “justified”, it is not used to describe any of those in the Old Testament). Righteous is used to describe lots of people even Abraham felt he could find 10 righteous people in Sodom.

I don't see where we find a significant distinction between the words. Justified means to be "made right" - righteousness.

There was “NO” sacrifice at the time for what David did unless you’re talking about David giving his own life.

Yet God forgave him.


No, it would not be a lie for God to tell Cain: “rule over sin”, since Cain can do that, if Cain accepts God’s help.

The encouragement that God gave Cain in saying that he could rule over sin, was God's help.
No. In order to obey God you must first Love God.

Obeying God IS loving God.

1 John 2
3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.

1 John 5
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.
 
Upvote 0

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Being “justified” before God is not the same thing as being “righteous”. Paul really emphasizes the fact that Christians are now “justified” before God when talking with Jewish Christians especially, since prior to Christ, no one previously in the Old Testament was described as being “justified” before God (although, I feel they were, “justified”, it is not used to describe any of those in the Old Testament). Righteous is used to describe lots of people even Abraham felt he could find 10 righteous people in Sodom.
Romans 4:3-5 (NASB) 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,​

The law wasn’t given to Moses for 430 years after Abraham was justified as righteous for his faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The only laws that really existed was do not murder & do no eat from the tree of the knowledge of good & evil. Therefore we can say with certainty that Abraham was justified by faith completely apart from the law.

Galatians 3:6-9, 16-17 (NASB) 6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
16 (NASB) Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
17 (NASB) What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.​

Romans 4:9-13 (NASB) 9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.​
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't see where we find a significant distinction between the words. Justified means to be "made right" - righteousness
.

Paul seems to be making a distinction, by say you now can be justified before God to the Jewish Christians especially in Romans and Galatians.

I do make a huge distinction because being righteous which can starts with you doing things right from now on, versus being justified which has more to do with resolving your past, who you were, which is more to do with repenting and being forgiven of you past sins. The “Law” only had atonement and forgiveness for unintentional sins (very minor sins) or sins you were not even sure you committed. Intentional sins directly against God resulted in banishment or death. God always had to power to forgive, but forgiveness of intentional sins was outside of the Law, like God did with David.


Right, God can always forgive and all mature adults need forgiveness. Do you believe God has both the power and Love to forgive sins without the need for Christ to go to the cross?


The encouragement that God gave Cain in saying that he could rule over sin, was God's help..

God wants and is willing to help everyone, but it is not a one sided transaction. In this case like it is for all people Cain has to accept God’s help as charity.

Cain has to humble ask for and accept God’s help as pure charity, because it is charity. His pride may have kept him from being humble, so the transaction of being correctly helped did not take place.

Obeying God IS loving God.

1 John 2
3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.

1 John 5
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.
Obeying God expresses your Love for God, but obeying does not equal Love.

Yes obedience does show your Love for God and if you are not obeying God you are not Loving God, but the Love comes first and allows us to obey.

John 14:23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Romans 4:3-5 (NASB) 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,​

The law wasn’t given to Moses for 430 years after Abraham was justified as righteous for his faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The only laws that really existed was do not murder & do no eat from the tree of the knowledge of good & evil. Therefore we can say with certainty that Abraham was justified by faith completely apart from the law.

Galatians 3:6-9, 16-17 (NASB) 6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
16 (NASB) Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
17 (NASB) What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.​

Romans 4:9-13 (NASB) 9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.​

Where are you finding Abraham having “his faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ.”?

I never suggested people in the Old Testament were not justified before God and Romans shows Abraham was, but it is not by following the “Law”, since no one could be justified by the Law except Christ. Abraham was definitely not justified by the Law, since the Moses Law had not been given. I do not agree that there were two ways to sin since everyone after Adam and Eve had knowledge of good and evil so they had a Law written on their hearts.

These are excellent verse to think about.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Paul seems to be making a distinction, by say you now can be justified before God to the Jewish Christians especially in Romans and Galatians.

You're going to have to be more specific then to show this alleged distinction. Paul isn't making a distinction between justification and righteousness. He uses the same word used for both. δικαιω means 'to render just or innocent.' To be righteous under the law is to be justified by it - or by obedience to it, more accurately.

He's not making a distinction between our English words, he using the word that we translate into 'justified' AND 'righteous.'

I do make a huge distinction because being righteous which can starts with you doing things right from now on, versus being justified which has more to do with resolving your past, who you were, which is more to do with repenting and being forgiven of you past sins. The “Law” only had atonement and forgiveness for unintentional sins (very minor sins) or sins you were not even sure you committed. Intentional sins directly against God resulted in banishment or death. God always had to power to forgive, but forgiveness of intentional sins was outside of the Law, like God did with David.

Being justified is the same as being righteous. But it isn't the same as self-justification. The only thing that can justify us or make us righteous before God is to obey the commands he gave.

Right, God can always forgive and all mature adults need forgiveness. Do you believe God has both the power and Love to forgive sins without the need for Christ to go to the cross?

I think that the old testament is pretty clear that he did forgive and I don't think those people fully understood what was to come. Thus to say that they were obeying "the gospel of Jesus Christ" as was revealed when he came to preach it, would not be correct. It wasn't revealed until he came to reveal it. Prior to his arrival, it was but a "shadow."

I think we're in agreement on this based on another of your posts.

Zacharias and Elizabeth were not blameless because of their obedience to the gospel before it had been delivered. Mark 1:1-4 tells us that the gospel was given when Jesus started his ministry. Nobody was aware of the gospel's details. They might have believed that a Messiah was coming and accepted that he would bring a new covenant. But everyone "made righteous" did so under the particular covenant that they were under.

The law had forgiveness. Says so plainly in Leviticus. "and it shall be forgiven him." In the Septuagint, the word used for "forgiven" there is the same word used for forgiven in the new testament. Not a partial forgiveness but a "leaving" or "putting away" of sin. That word is also the one used when Jesus prayed on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me."

The teaching that atonement is different than forgiveness is not correct. All sins are "covered" in the sense that they are forgotten. The covering prevents anyone from looking back on them and seeing that they were committed. A person back then was cleansed of his sin just as he is today. Both "dispensations" delivered remission though through different sacrifices. And as Paul explains in Hebrews, what makes the gospel superior is that there isn't a repeated requirement to offer new sacrifices. Jesus made the one sacrifice for all. And as we read from the account of Cornelius, there were certain Gentiles who obeyed God even though they were not bound by the law of Moses.

Acts 10
10 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.

As we read throughout the old testament and new, God does not hear the prayers of sinners (see also: John 9), and Cornelius was not a Jew, subject to the law of Moses. God accepted him though and heard his prayers.

God wants and is willing to help everyone, but it is not a one sided transaction. In this case like it is for all people Cain has to accept God’s help as charity.

God's help is his word. The words are spirit and they are life. We can't dismiss this as if it is not spiritual enough or helpful enough. Only faith in those words will do anything. Self-justification is not possible.

John 6
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

There is so much teaching today which over-spiritualizes certain things of the gospel but then never spiritualizes enough, God's word.

The Calvanistic belief that we are regenerated before we obey dismisses the power of God's words and says that the Spirit enters us and "fixes" us so that we can obey. Reformists preached in essence that the words were dead and couldn't be obeyed. So they entirely miss the point that the words themselves were, and are, Spirit and Life.

Hebrews 4
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The word is powerful and living to all, not just Christians.

The Jews on the day of Pentecost had their hearts changed by the words spoken to them. If that's not God's help, nothing is. There is no need to turn the gospel into some Harry Potter magic wand event. The words are spiritual in and of themselves, and God, who invented language and words, has determined that we can be changed by those very words which are breathed out by him.

I realize that you aren't Calvanistic. Just a bit of a rant because the same sort of dismissal of the power of God's word seems to permeate a lot of teaching, even teaching that would seem correct.

Cain has to humble ask for and accept God’s help as pure charity, because it is charity. His pride may have kept him from being humble, so the transaction of being correctly helped did not take place.

God offered his help free of charge. Cain rejected his words. His heart was hardened just as Pharaoh's was because he rejected God's words. God's words are not so designed that they cause us to do things against our own will. But if we submit our will to the words, we can be justified or made righteous. Is it us doing anything? Not of ourselves it isn't. You can get in a bathtub and immerse yourself in water all you want, but it isn't until you immerse yourself in belief and obedience to God's words that your sins are washed away and you are put into Christ.

Obeying God expresses your Love for God, but obeying does not equal Love.

John says that obeying God is love. That grammar is saying explicitly that "the love of God" equals "that we keep his commandments." And it works the other way too. The love of God is not just in the giving of his Son but in the giving of his commandments.

1 John 5
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gup20

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 11, 2019
654
136
45
Albertville
✟157,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where are you finding Abraham having “his faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ.”?
Here is where I get the idea that Abraham believed the gospel of Jesus Christ;

[Gen 15:5-6 KJV] 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

[Gal 3:6-9, 16 NASB] 6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, [saying,] "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. ... 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [referring] to many, but [rather] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
So from Galatians 3 we can see that when God said to Abraham regarding the stars "so shall thy seed (singlular) be," he was talking about Jesus Christ. God was literally preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to Abraham, and when Abraham believed God regarding Jesus Christ, he was made righteous.

[Rom 4:3, 9-13, 16-17 NASB] 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." ... 9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. ... 16 For this reason [it is] by faith, in order that [it may be] in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the presence of Him whom he believed, [even] God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.

[Gen 17:4-8 KJV] 4 As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. 6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed (singular) after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed (singular) after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed (singular) after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.​

The "seed" is Christ and by extension, those who are those who are in Christ... those with the same faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ that Abraham had.

[Gal 3:26, 28 NASB] 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. ... 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.​

So God promises that all of Abraham's seed would inherit the righteousness God gave him when he believed the Gospel that God preached to him (the gospel specifically regarding Jesus Christ) as Gal 3:8, 16 says. So faith doesn't qualify us for righteousness as it did Abraham, but rather faith qualifies us as descendants of Abraham and thereby heirs of the righteousness God granted him.

[Rom 8:15-17 NASB] 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with [Him] so that we may also be glorified with [Him.]

[Luk 19:9 NASB] 9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.

[Heb 2:16 NASB] 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.​

Notice Zaccheus in Luke 19 was considered 'saved' by becoming a son of Abraham that day.

[Col 1:12 NASB] 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.

[Eph 1:13-14 NASB] 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of [God's own] possession, to the praise of His glory.​

In fact, we find out in Galatians 4 that there will be many more "children" raised up to Abraham through faith then by physical descendants. Paul quotes this verse from Isaiah 54:1 (which is the culmination of Isaiah 53 - a banned chapter in many Jewish Synagogues because of how obviously it speaks of Jesus).

[Isa 54:1 NASB] 1 "Shout for joy, O barren one, you who have borne no [child;] Break forth into joyful shouting and cry aloud, you who have not travailed; For the sons of the desolate one [will be] more numerous Than the sons of the married woman," says the LORD.​
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
61
VENETA
Visit site
✟34,926.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Here is where I get the idea that Abraham believed the gospel of Jesus Christ;

[Gen 15:5-6 KJV] 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

[Gal 3:6-9, 16 NASB] 6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, [saying,] "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. ... 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [referring] to many, but [rather] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

I believe your mistake here is in making the word "gospel" mean the same thing every time its used. ie; the system of faith that Jesus brought to us - good news - with its specific commandments, and the "good news" as told to Abraham that in his seed would come a blessing for all mankind. It's good news, but it isn't the entire gospel. Abraham didn't therefore go get baptized and stop sacrificing animals. God preached "the good news" to Abraham but it wasn't the entire, revealed gospel message that Jesus brought.
 
Upvote 0