A defense of logic.

[Dave-W]

Actually all of the Jews ...

You are already in trouble. There has never ever been a case where you could say that "all of the Jews" were united on anything. There is an old (but true) joke about having 5 Jews and 6 opinions.

In first century Judea, there were at least a half dozen different groups with various desires and motivations. The Sadducees (temple priests) were not looking for any kind of messiah or king. What the Pharisees of Shammai were looking for differed from the Pharisees of Hillel. The Herrodians wanted the Herrod family put in as a permanent monarch, and the Zealots just wanted Rome and Greece to be thrown out of the Land.

Etc, etc, etc......

 

[twin1954]

You are already in trouble. There has never ever been a case where you could say that "all of the Jews" were united on anything. There is an old (but true) joke about having 5 Jews and 6 opinions.

In first century Judea, there were at least a half dozen different groups with various desires and motivations. The Sadducees (temple priests) were not looking for any kind of messiah or king. What the Pharisees of Shammai were looking for differed from the Pharisees of Hillel. The Herrodians wanted the Herrod family put in as a permanent monarch, and the Zealots just wanted Rome and Greece to be thrown out of the Land.

Etc, etc, etc......

Yet they all together cried "crucify Him, crucify Him".

 

[Dave-W]

Yet they all together cried "crucify Him, crucify Him".

Isa 53.3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

That was all according to God's plan.

 

[twin1954]

Isa 53.3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

That was all according to God's plan.

God doesn't have a plan He has a purpose. He purposed that the Lord Jesus Christ be rejected and crucified to be sure.

 

[now faith]

Through the fall of Adam of course.

Through the fall of Adam of course.

Genesis: 1. 26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Did God ,after creating man in his image then bless man only to later give man a sin nature?
I'm not doubting the sin nature,all we need do is study God's word and see from the events from the beginning, to the present day that man will continue to fall.

Genesis: 6. 5. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


Genesis: 8. 21. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

What logical conclusion do we have,when we take in account the emotional narritive of God about man's sin nature?

 

[now faith]

Isa 53.3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

That was all according to God's plan.

Are you sure it was a plan?
Or could it have been for knowledge of God considering the prophetic meaning in so much if not all of the Old Testament?

 

[now faith]

Rom. 1:18-32 contains many allusions to the Genesis 1 creation account (some clearer than others) and even some at least veiled allusions to Genesis 3 (the Fall), so you may be right about a pre-Abrahamic target group in Rom. 1:18ff. Certainly the rejection of the Creator happened in Genesis right after the Fall and following. And certainly Jews were recipients with Gentiles of the revelation of God in that which has been created (hence my use of the term "primarily," above, applied to Gentiles).

But also Romans 1:18-32 is meant to have application for the church at Rome contemporary with Paul, and Rom. 1:18-32 contrasts, particularly for Jewish Christians in Rome, with Jews indicted in Rom. 2. The usual antipode to "Jew" for Paul is "Gentile."

All mankind is indeed indicted: past and present.

I agree due to the present and past tense in Paul's teaching:
Romans: 1. 18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Starting at vs 21 He speaks in past tense.

Do you think there is a continuity between Romans 1 and 1st Peter concerning this teaching?

1 Peter: 3. 18. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19. By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20. Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

This seems to verify John 3:16 ,as to mean all mankind past, present ,and future.

 

[now faith]

It might be worth recalling here D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies book (2nd ed., 1996) in which is found one chapter entitled "Logical Fallacies." This chapter lists 18 kinds of fallacies with illustrations in published works. No claim is made that the list or examples are comprehensive of the topic, only that the fallacies listed "frequently crop up in exegetical work" (p. 87). Nor of course are logical fallacies the only sort of exegetical fallacy.

You may assume that a passage is a logical fallacy, but by the same premises you have concluded based on grammer and semantics, you can look at a passage void of the authors intentions and assume a literal interpretation.
Being sharper than a two edged Sword the Word can cut both ways.

 

[Look Up]

I agree due to the present and past tense in Paul's teaching:
Romans: 1. 18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Starting at vs 21 He speaks in past tense.

Do you think there is a continuity between Romans 1 and 1st Peter concerning this teaching?

1 Peter: 3. 18. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19. By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20. Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

This seems to verify John 3:16 ,as to mean all mankind past, present ,and future.

1) By your "past and present" observations using Rom. 1:18-23, in part you help substantiate my earlier general claim that "Romans 1:18-32 is meant to have application for the church at Rome contemporary with Paul."

For this, thank you.

2) I'm not sure quite what you have in mind wrt "continuity" between--on the one hand-- the Rom. 1 indictment of humanity "past and present" from the vantage point of Paul when writing his Romans epistle and--on the other hand--1 Peter 3:18-20 (and textual environs), and my uncertainty is deepened by the 1 Peter 3 passage, which partly hinges on controversial and unfortunately in my view to date, enigmatic bits.

Be that as it may, Peter does seem to speak of Noah's ark as a type of salvation--a veiled sort of (typological?) prophecy of the salvation which Jesus would later accomplish on the cross (saved from the wrath of God).

And while I may not entirely understand what you mean by John 3:16 "as to mean all mankind past, present ,and future," I can at least say there seems sufficient grounds to say Peter viewed Noah (and family noted) to have been as saved as he anticipates his epistle readers to have been.

More broadly in Scripture, there seems sufficient grounds to claim that Abraham, for example, had a faith (cf. Rom. 4) like one who (say in Johannine terms) believes in the Incarnate Jesus, and that the eternal destinies of Old Testament saints (cf. the faith of some listed in Heb. 11) is the same as that of saints under the new covenant, of whom it may be said that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord--with the one Lord of all creation from the beginning until the present with projection into the future.

What this "B.C. + A.D. alike" salvation does not mean, however, is that Noah had the same revelation of Jesus--His incarnation, teaching, good works, cross work and resurrection, apostolic reflection--that we have. The Old Testament saints had "types and shadows" such as the sacrificial system, Noah's ark, prophecy of a coming King like David and Prophet like Moses, a bronze serpent lifted up, etc., etc. Surely God so loved, for example, Noah and Samuel and David and Isaiah that He gave His only Son on their behalf too, but the God and the promises they believed in, while real, were not as clearly revealed as after Jesus walked the earth. And while Jesus died for sins once for all, He died long after Noah or Isaiah were alive on earth. Noah need not have believed in Jesus entirely as we know Him to have been saved.

But also, such OT saints were sinners too, and knew pagans (non-Israelites) to have been sinners too. God destroyed the humanity He had made in the days of Noah because such people were sinners (Gen. 6:5-7).

As an aside, the Noah/Flood narrative often displays deliberate parallels to the earlier Adam/creation narrative(s)--which I note in case that points to an interest of yours wrt 1 Pet. 3.

3) Three remarks in closing. One is a reaffirmation of my uncertainty that I here "scratch your itch" or go some length in addressing your concerns. I may by guesses have drifted from your intent.

Second, the 1 Pet. 3 passage is concerned with using the-Jesus-who-suffered-unjustly as a model for the Christian (when so called) to suffer for righteousness sake in all good conscience, whereas Rom. 1:18ff again is concerned with indicting (created) humanity, particularly the Gentiles. God's patience in the days "while the ark was being prepared" (1 Pet. 3:20) was concerned with His delay of judgment before the Flood; Christians who suffer for righteousness sake need a like patience in any delay before they are delivered from evil. Rom. 1:18-ch. 3 as I wrote above builds from universal indictment of humanity in sin to universal need for salvation in Jesus--justification "to everyone who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (1:17, cf. 3:21ff).

The two passages (from Rom. 1 & 1 Pet. 3) are rather different in focus and direction even if there is underlying theological coherence.

Third, I fear our discussion--while I here attempt to address your question--drifts from the OP of this thread even if your question attempts to get at a particular logical (or not, as the case may be) deduction.

 

[now faith]

1) By your "past and present" observations using Rom. 1:18-23, in part you help substantiate my earlier general claim that "Romans 1:18-32 is meant to have application for the church at Rome contemporary with Paul."

For this, thank you.

2) I'm not sure quite what you have in mind wrt "continuity" between--on the one hand-- the Rom. 1 indictment of humanity "past and present" from the vantage point of Paul when writing his Romans epistle and--on the other hand--1 Peter 3:18-20 (and textual environs), and my uncertainty is deepened by the 1 Peter 3 passage, which partly hinges on controversial and unfortunately in my view to date, enigmatic bits.

Be that as it may, Peter does seem to speak of Noah's ark as a type of salvation--a veiled sort of (typological?) prophecy of the salvation which Jesus would later accomplish on the cross (saved from the wrath of God).

And while I may not entirely understand what you mean by John 3:16 "as to mean all mankind past, present ,and future," I can at least say there seems sufficient grounds to say Peter viewed Noah (and family noted) to have been as saved as he anticipates his epistle readers to have been.

More broadly in Scripture, there seems sufficient grounds to claim that Abraham, for example, had a faith (cf. Rom. 4) like one who (say in Johannine terms) believes in the Incarnate Jesus, and that the eternal destinies of Old Testament saints (cf. the faith of some listed in Heb. 11) is the same as that of saints under the new covenant, of whom it may be said that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord--with the one Lord of all creation from the beginning until the present with projection into the future.

What this "B.C. + A.D. alike" salvation does not mean, however, is that Noah had the same revelation of Jesus--His incarnation, teaching, good works, cross work and resurrection, apostolic reflection--that we have. The Old Testament saints had "types and shadows" such as the sacrificial system, Noah's ark, prophecy of a coming King like David and Prophet like Moses, a bronze serpent lifted up, etc., etc. Surely God so loved, for example, Noah and Samuel and David and Isaiah that He gave His only Son on their behalf too, but the God and the promises they believed in, while real, were not as clearly revealed as after Jesus walked the earth. And while Jesus died for sins once for all, He died long after Noah or Isaiah were alive on earth. Noah need not have believed in Jesus entirely as we know Him to have been saved.

But also, such OT saints were sinners too, and knew pagans (non-Israelites) to have been sinners too. God destroyed the humanity He had made in the days of Noah because such people were sinners (Gen. 6:5-7).

As an aside, the Noah/Flood narrative often displays deliberate parallels to the earlier Adam/creation narrative(s)--which I note in case that points to an interest of yours wrt 1 Pet. 3.

3) Three remarks in closing. One is a reaffirmation of my uncertainty that I here "scratch your itch" or go some length in addressing your concerns. I may by guesses have drifted from your intent.

Second, the 1 Pet. 3 passage is concerned with using the-Jesus-who-suffered-unjustly as a model for the Christian (when so called) to suffer for righteousness sake in all good conscience, whereas Rom. 1:18ff again is concerned with indicting (created) humanity, particularly the Gentiles. God's patience in the days "while the ark was being prepared" (1 Pet. 3:20) was concerned with His delay of judgment before the Flood; Christians who suffer for righteousness sake need a like patience in any delay before they are delivered from evil. Rom. 1:18-ch. 3 as I wrote above builds from universal indictment of humanity in sin to universal need for salvation in Jesus--justification "to everyone who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (1:17, cf. 3:21ff).

The two passages (from Rom. 1 & 1 Pet. 3) are rather different in focus and direction even if there is underlying theological coherence.

Third, I fear our discussion--while I here attempt to address your question--drifts from the OP of this thread even if your question attempts to get at a particular logical (or not, as the case may be) deduction.

One the past and present tense of Paul's Teaching in verses 18-23 validates a Red Herring on your part that the presumption the teaching was proprietary for only that time and place.

I do not want to derail the thread,this is why most of my replys were to the OP.
In particular was asking for a opinion about a correlation between the verses in Peter and Romans.
No need for adhominim enundo on a lack of logic on my part,as we are both guest here and teaching is against the protocol.
Personally I am trying to build a exchange of fellowship with the Baptist,due to being Baptist for most of my life.

 

[now faith]

1) By your "past and present" observations using Rom. 1:18-23, in part you help substantiate my earlier general claim that "Romans 1:18-32 is meant to have application for the church at Rome contemporary with Paul."

3) Three remarks in closing. One is a reaffirmation of my uncertainty that I here "scratch your itch" or go some length in addressing your concerns. I may by guesses have drifted from your intent.
UN QUOTE :
Quote Now Faith
To use language such as "scratch my itch" is a bit odd in this setting,and is a crude metaphor for my involvement not this thread.
Often when replies are given when not requested I skim them,but taking a second look it just seems garish and unnecessary.

 

[twin1954]

Genesis: 1. 26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Did God ,after creating man in his image then bless man only to later give man a sin nature?
I'm not doubting the sin nature,all we need do is study God's word and see from the events from the beginning, to the present day that man will continue to fall.

Genesis: 6. 5. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


Genesis: 8. 21. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

What logical conclusion do we have,when we take in account the emotional narritive of God about man's sin nature?

We know that those "emotional narratives" are anthropomorphic statements in which God, who cannot be grasped by man's puny understanding, speaks as though He were a man in order to make a point to us that we can understand. See the thread on the impassibility of God.

Logic certainly shows us that if the Scriptures as a whole and their teaching is taken into account that those passages must be anthropomorphic.

 

[twin1954]

Are you sure it was a plan?
Or could it have been for knowledge of God considering the prophetic meaning in so much if not all of the Old Testament?

If it was foreknowledge then God learned something and that means that He changes. That is how logic works when used properly to find the conclusion to theological views. God learning is Open Theism.

 

[Look Up]

One the past and present tense of Paul's Teaching in verses 18-23 validates a Red Herring on your part that the presumption the teaching was proprietary for only that time and place.

I do not want to derail the thread,this is why most of my replys were to the OP.
In particular was asking for a opinion about a correlation between the verses in Peter and Romans.
No need for adhominim enundo on a lack of logic on my part,as we are both guest here and teaching is against the protocol.
Personally I am trying to build a exchange of fellowship with the Baptist,due to being Baptist for most of my life.

I actually have very little idea of what you mean in the above post. Certainly I do not believe Romans 1 applies "only [for Paul's? to some primeval?] time and place," but that the whole epistle is for the whole church in every period of the church, with indictment of humanity for all ages. I was attempting, among many other things, to address Romans 1 from the vantage point of Paul as he wrote. I am not trying to be deceptive though I seem to have been unclear to you (my apologies, though it is unclear to me where I was unclear).

And certainly I intended no ad hominem argument against you; I am at a loss to guess what I wrote that might be taken even as innuendo (if that is what you mean) suggesting ad hominem argument. Nor do I understand how you react to my actual comments concerning Rom. 1 & 1 Peter 3, which comprised an attempt as I wrote to address your question.

If you wish to engage Baptists instead if me, I will happily bow out of discussion with you, though concerning the topics about which I have written above, I can only guess I am rather close in belief to a whole lot of Baptists (having been one for many years myself also). Nor do I think I (at least) have written "against protocol" perhaps other than a danger of divergence from the OP--though again we are both trying to incorporate logic and the vocabulary of logic, applied to particular issues.

 

[now faith]

I actually have very little idea of what you mean in the above post. Certainly I do not believe Romans 1 applies "only [for Paul's? to some primeval?] time and place," but that the whole epistle is for the whole church in every period of the church, with indictment of humanity for all ages. I was attempting, among many other things, to address Romans 1 from the vantage point of Paul as he wrote. I am not trying to be deceptive though I seem to have been unclear to you (my apologies, though it is unclear to me where I was unclear).

And certainly I intended no ad hominem argument against you; I am at a loss to guess what I wrote that might be taken even as innuendo (if that is what you mean) suggesting ad hominem argument. Nor do I understand how you react to my actual comments concerning Rom. 1 & 1 Peter 3, which comprised an attempt as I wrote to address your question.

If you wish to engage Baptists instead if me, I will happily bow out of discussion with you, though concerning the topics about which I have written above, I can only guess I am rather close in belief to a whole lot of Baptists (having been one for many years myself also). Nor do I think I (at least) have written "against protocol" perhaps other than a danger of divergence from the OP--though again we are both trying to incorporate logic and the vocabulary of logic, applied to particular issues.

Ok no offence intended,I do not want to offend you nor do I think your trying to offend me,my apologies.
Let's hope the OP is still watching this thread.

 

[now faith]

If it was foreknowledge then God learned something and that means that He changes. That is how logic works when used properly to find the conclusion to theological views. God learning is Open Theism.

Yes God learning or changing his mind is Open Theism .

Christ was foreordained the lamb slain before the foundation for the World.

1 Peter: 1. 19. But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21. Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

I do not see any learning on God's part by having the foreknowledge of this,and giving us the prophecy in the Old Testament by symbolism or ceremony.

 

[now faith]

We know that those "emotional narratives" are anthropomorphic statements in which God, who cannot be grasped by man's puny understanding, speaks as though He were a man in order to make a point to us that we can understand. See the thread on the impassibility of God.



Logic certainly shows us that if the Scriptures as a whole and their teaching is taken into account that those passages must be anthropomorphic.

Matthew: 23. 37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Anthropomorphic statements have a human element in their description.
Christ when speaking of Jerusalem was in the form of a man,so this terminology would be logical for him to use so those who heard would comprehend.
Theomorphism would apply to God in his divinity as creator of all things.
It is not that man creates God but God created man in his image.
This does not change Christ as Emanuel (God with us) it personifies his laying aside his divine nature to die for mankind.

 

[Dave-W]

Are you sure it was a plan?
Or could it have been for knowledge of God considering the prophetic meaning in so much if not all of the Old Testament?

Using the term "foreknowledge" presupposes that God is subject to the same time flow that we are.

He created time and exists outside it.

 

[twin1954]

Yes God learning or changing his mind is Open Theism .

Christ was foreordained the lamb slain before the foundation for the World.

1 Peter: 1. 19. But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21. Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

I do not see any learning on God's part by having the foreknowledge of this,and giving us the prophecy in the Old Testament by symbolism or ceremony.

The manner in which you posted that I quoted would seem to indicate that God learned by foreknowledge. That is why I stated what I did.

 

[twin1954]

Matthew: 23. 37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Anthropomorphic statements have a human element in their description.
Christ when speaking of Jerusalem was in the form of a man,so this terminology would be logical for him to use so those who heard would comprehend.
Theomorphism would apply to God in his divinity as creator of all things.
It is not that man creates God but God created man in his image.
This does not change Christ as Emanuel (God with us) it personifies his laying aside his divine nature to die for mankind.

Yet man does create a god in his own image all the time. He goes into the forest of his imagination and carves out a god that he can control. Hence the Jesus that most people hear of and believe. Hence the name it and claim it group.

As far as the passage from Matt. 18 that you give if you carefully read it you will find that the Lord is speaking to the leaders of Jerusalem not all the people of Jerusalem. He never had a good word to say to or about the Jewish leaders.