Concerning Romans 3:10

[dcyates]

I had my doubts about making my point with you and then be able to clear it up, if you didn't understand it, seminary being how it leaves one after attending. But I gave it a go. Too bad for me.

Forgive me, are you referring to my attending seminary? Or you? And if me, are you implying that doing so has made me less able to understand theological argument? (I certainly hope not; that would be news to all of my students.)

BTW and FWIW: "Might be" equates with "choice" as in, "If you do this, I will do that", so often the case when reading the instruction God gave man.

"Choice"? I honestly mean no disrespect, Ormly, but not only am I not sure that equating the words "might be" with "choice" is a legitimate understanding of the text, I'm not even sure how it supports your argument. How does God saying "If you do this, I will do that" constitute choice? You responded to my initial post by claiming that the words "might be" does not entail "will be," and that the effect is therefore not a certainty. In other words, that the "promise" being manifested through faith does not ensure it being derived according to God's grace. Do you seriously mean to argue that God is essentially saying (via Paul) that, "If you have faith, I might choose to justify you according to my grace -- but then again, I might not"?
The fact is, the Greek here reads: "dia touto ek pisteos, hina kata charin," or "it is therefore of faith, so that (or, in order that) it may be according to grace." Remember, Paul is trying to establish that God's righteousness (that is, his covenant faithfulness) is not manifested through works of the law, but rather through grace, and therefore there is no cause for boasting (cf. 3.27). Here he is using Abraham as an apt illustration of that truth.

And I will stick to the KLV rendering as opposed to your un-signatured, 'critical' greek anytime there is reason to depart from it, which is more frequently the case to keep from going into apostasy.

Oh, I am by no means saying that your understanding rises to the level of apostasy, but it does appear to be a misunderstanding of the text -- even of the KJV text.

 

[Ormly]

Forgive me, are you referring to my attending seminary? Or you? And if me, are you implying that doing so has made me less able to understand theological argument? (I certainly hope not; that would be news to all of my students.)


"Choice"? I honestly mean no disrespect, Ormly, but not only am I not sure that equating the words "might be" with "choice" is a legitimate understanding of the text, I'm not even sure how it supports your argument. How does God saying "If you do this, I will do that" constitute choice? You responded to my initial post by claiming that the words "might be" does not entail "will be," and that the effect is therefore not a certainty. In other words, that the "promise" being manifested through faith does not ensure it being derived according to God's grace. Do you seriously mean to argue that God is essentially saying (via Paul) that, "If you have faith, I might choose to justify you according to my grace -- but then again, I might not"?
The fact is, the Greek here reads: "dia touto ek pisteos, hina kata charin," or "it is therefore of faith, so that (or, in order that) it may be according to grace." Remember, Paul is trying to establish that God's righteousness (that is, his covenant faithfulness) is not manifested through works of the law, but rather through grace, and therefore there is no cause for boasting (cf. 3.27). Here he is using Abraham as an apt illustration of that truth.

Oh, I am by no means saying that your understanding rises to the level of apostasy, but it does appear to be a misunderstanding of the text -- even of the KJV text.

Forgive me but I believe you give sufficient example of why the kids are coming of seminary 'incomplete, if not entirely confused' in their thinking while, believing it all to be a solid foundation without realizing they will be building upon, at best, an 'unlevel' one.

The Grace you speak of is a law unto itself. It is the LAW of God, one in substance with His divine Nature, indwelling the new born of Him that is to be learned like any other law if, one is to become a mature son of the Father. It is His LAW evidenced by our 'maturing' love TO Him [not FOR Him as something one carries in the back pocket]. It is His "yoke" and no one knew that better than Paul when writing Romans 7. You fail to mention that in your discourse you etch in stone. Proof? Abraham was given no "law" aside from his faith in God that released God to reveal Himself to Abraham in a more intimate way and with but promises was he made in himself even more faithful. Learn that to know Abraham's faith was not a gift of God an is why man was justified by exercising his own faith, as Abraham, "who is the father of us all who believe". It is, and will always be, THAT faith, that carries with it a reward. cf Rom 5:1.

And I, likewise, mean no disrespect.

 

[dcyates]

Forgive me but I believe you give sufficient example of why the kids are coming of seminary 'incomplete, if not entirely confused' in their thinking while, believing it all to be a solid foundation without realizing they will be building upon, at best, an 'unlevel' one.

Again, I feel compelled to preface my response with a qualification. I don't mean to seem like I'm tooting my own horn here, but the majority of my students are not "kids" but rather mature adults, and I've had more than a few of them testify that my teaching has either reignited in them a desire to study Scripture, or engendered an urge to do so that hadn't been there before.
(And if you'll allow me to say so, I think it more than a bit prejudicial -- even presumptuous -- for you to make such an adjudication based solely on a couple short posts made on a website such as this. Please, Ormly, I hope and pray you take this in the spirit in which it's intended, but that sort of 'judgmentalism' is not only ill-fitting, but also gives Christians a bad name.)

The Grace you speak of is a law unto itself. It is the LAW of God, one in substance with His divine Nature, indwelling the new born of Him that is to be learned like any other law if, one is to become a mature son of the Father. It is His LAW evidenced by our 'maturing' love TO Him [not FOR Him as something one carries in the back pocket]. It is His "yoke" and no one knew that better than Paul when writing Romans 7.

Is this exegesis? Or sermonizing? Where do you get any of this from the text?

You fail to mention that in your discourse you etch in stone.

Huh?!? Why would I?

Proof? Abraham was given no "law" aside from his faith in God that released God to reveal Himself to Abraham in a more intimate way and with but promises was he made in himself even more faithful. Learn that to know Abraham's faith was not a gift of God an is why man was justified by exercising his own faith, as Abraham, "who is the father of us all who believe". It is, and will always be, THAT faith, that carries with it a reward. cf Rom 5:1.

The "law" being referred to here by Paul is obviously the Mosiac/Sinaitic/Levitical law, and regarding Abraham, he's showing that long before the giving of that law -- even before the proscription of circumcision -- God entered into a covenant relationship with him, and even though God had yet to fulfill any of those covenant promises, Abraham believed that he would, thus making relationship between him and God possible.
Moreover, the "faith" of Rom 5.1 should also be understood, not as our "faith" -- that is our exact problem: that we're not faithful -- but rather that we're "justified by (Jesus') faithfulness."

And I, likewise, mean no disrespect.

Again, nor I toward you.

 

[Ormly]

Moreover, the "faith" of Rom 5.1 should also be understood, not as our "faith" -- that is our exact problem: that we're not faithful -- but rather that we're "justified by (Jesus') faithfulness."

This part goes more to the heart of the matter, i.e., Jesus wasn't even born when men were justified by their own faith. Again, Abraham is the prime example of such a one given for an example. Of course there were others who "walked with God" to such a degree that God even took them. And then there were men who called upon the Name of the Lord, without even the knowledge of the need for what we deem, salvation. cf Gen 4:26. Even more, there were the sons of God, men of renown, who remained so until they took to themselves the daughters of men and corrupted their generation with God finally giving them over to the flood as their reward. Now, in the light of that, speak of justification by Jesus' faithfulness? Who escaped in any of that, except the righteous__and how was they were?

Again, no disrespect intended . . ))

 

[Ormly]

Again, I feel compelled to preface my response with a qualification. I don't mean to seem like I'm tooting my own horn here, but the majority of my students are not "kids" but rather mature adults, and I've had more than a few of them testify that my teaching has either reignited in them a desire to study Scripture, or engendered an urge to do so that hadn't been there before.
(And if you'll allow me to say so, I think it more than a bit prejudicial -- even presumptuous -- for you to make such an adjudication based solely on a couple short posts made on a website such as this. Please, Ormly, I hope and pray you take this in the spirit in which it's intended, but that sort of 'judgmentalism' is not only ill-fitting, but also gives Christians a bad name.)

I said you are an example of why, not that your students were, kids.

Is this exegesis? Or sermonizing? Where do you get any of this from the text?

It would make a good teaching, wouldn't it? __ I'm trying.
It is of understanding, in capsule form, a part of the teaching of Jesus. His 'yoke' is His government is it not and governments have laws, do they not?

However, It is also exegete by understanding what transpires when the divine Nature of God indwells one upon his new birth in Christ. cf John 20:22. That is when the Disciples were born again. It was then their old nature was removed from them to make room for their new sinless One. cf 1 John 3:9 (KJV) They were the first.

I believe the soul can only handle one, don't you? Interestingly, the Disciples received their indwelling only after having been with Jesus, to be taught by Him. That was when He was "with" them and now He was "In" them. With us now, who born again, it is the other around. We must first be indwelt in order to learn from Jesus. In either way, the result is that both them and us were/are given God's Nature, just as Jesus possessed it from His birth, for to learn to live by His Law. It is called the "way of the cross", purposed that we arrive at the Mind of God as Jesus "owned" it. Cf John 17.

The "law" being referred to here by Paul is obviously the Mosiac/Sinaitic/Levitical law, and regarding Abraham, he's showing that long before the giving of that law -- even before the proscription of circumcision -- God entered into a covenant relationship with him, and even though God had yet to fulfill any of those covenant promises, Abraham believed that he would, thus making relationship between him and God possible.

Indeed, that is true. However Romans 7 speaks of yet another law, doesn't it that could be entered into Paul's discourse that even more readily speaks to the Christian's striving to enter the kingdom? __ a law that must be overcome.

I hope you are enjoying this, I am.