Concerning Romans 3:10

[Ormly]

Without taking into consideration why Paul quoted David and God, with regards to the spiritual condition of the state of Israel at the time they made their declaration, Paul, referring to it in Rom 3:10, will always present an incomplete understanding to those, by such error, who seek to understand and promote the gospel.

Here is a good breakdown and an opinion of the genesis of Romans 3:10 from the Wycliffe commentary. I have added Psalm 53 that I believe should have been included.

Romans 3:10-18. In these verses Paul quotes a number of OT passages: 3:10-12 from Ps 14:1-3; 3:13a, b from Ps 5:9; 3:13c from Ps 140:3; 3:14 from Ps 10:7; 3:15-17 from Isa 59:7, 8; 3:18 from Ps 36:1. The apostle does not quote from the Hebrew text but from the Greek version of the OT, the Septuagint (lxx). Sometimes he quotes it exactly; other times he paraphrases or abridges it; occasionally he is quite free in his handling of the wording (see Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC, pp. 77-79). But the thought of the OT is adequately conveyed. All these quotations come from the Psalms except one passage—Isa 59:7. In their original context not all of these verses stress the universality of sin. The first (Ps 14:1-3) does. The next three (Ps 5:9; 140:3; 10:7) deal with the condition, attitude, and conduct of the wicked. The passage from Isaiah (59:7, 8) deals with the unrighteousness of Israel. Psalm 36:1 sets forth the wicked man's lack of respect for God. Hence this collection of OT quotations illustrates the various forms of sin, the undesirable characteristics of sinners, the effect of their action, and their attitude toward God. This is the same picture that Paul himself has been painting.The Wycliffe Bible Commentary.

I hope and pray you all will find this helpful.

 

[Brenda Morgan]

Romans 3:10 King James Version (KJV)



10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:



Paul is probably quoting from Psalm14
Psalm 14:1-3

King James Version (KJV)


Psalm 14


1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.


Psalm 14 is about fools. Are all men fools?

 

[juvenissun]

Without taking into consideration why Paul quoted David and God, with regards to the spiritual condition of the state of Israel at the time they made their declaration, Paul, referring to it in Rom 3:10, will always present an incomplete understanding to those, by such error, who seek to understand and promote the gospel.

Here is a good breakdown and an opinion of the genesis of Romans 3:10 from the Wycliffe commentary. I have added Psalm 53 that I believe should have been included.

Romans 3:10-18. In these verses Paul quotes a number of OT passages: 3:10-12 from Ps 14:1-3; 3:13a, b from Ps 5:9; 3:13c from Ps 140:3; 3:14 from Ps 10:7; 3:15-17 from Isa 59:7, 8; 3:18 from Ps 36:1. The apostle does not quote from the Hebrew text but from the Greek version of the OT, the Septuagint (lxx). Sometimes he quotes it exactly; other times he paraphrases or abridges it; occasionally he is quite free in his handling of the wording (see Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC, pp. 77-79). But the thought of the OT is adequately conveyed. All these quotations come from the Psalms except one passage—Isa 59:7. In their original context not all of these verses stress the universality of sin. The first (Ps 14:1-3) does. The next three (Ps 5:9; 140:3; 10:7) deal with the condition, attitude, and conduct of the wicked. The passage from Isaiah (59:7, 8) deals with the unrighteousness of Israel. Psalm 36:1 sets forth the wicked man's lack of respect for God. Hence this collection of OT quotations illustrates the various forms of sin, the undesirable characteristics of sinners, the effect of their action, and their attitude toward God. This is the same picture that Paul himself has been painting.The Wycliffe Bible Commentary.

I hope and pray you all will find this helpful.

Would the "incomplete" understanding cause any problem? What is the concern?

 

[Ormly]

Would the "incomplete" understanding cause any problem? What is the concern?

Indeed it does. The scriptures say this: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" Eph. 2:8 Those of Calvin, have taken this to mean the faith, by which man needs to turn to God for His salvation, is FIRST a gift of God. This because, man, of himself, is desperately wicked, totally depraved and thus totally incapable, per Rom 3:10, of having such needed faith. Eph 2:8 does NOT infer nor in any way imply that; historical evidence totally refutes it and yet a whole false doctrine has been established as a result of Eph. 2:8 being construed to make fit all else they believe, i.e., election, predestination, atonement and eternal security, that by such "construing" have warped the gospel and that their voluminous commentaries are taken as thee gospel. This has been, in my estimation as well as others, a "bane" to Christianity. Results declare it.

 

[St_Worm2]

Indeed it does. The scriptures say this: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" Eph. 2:8 Those of Calvin, have taken this to mean the faith, by which man needs to turn to God for His salvation, is FIRST a gift of God. This because, man, of himself, is desperately wicked, totally depraved and thus totally incapable, per Rom 3:10, of having such needed faith. Eph 2:8 does NOT infer nor in any way imply that; historical evidence totally refutes it and yet a whole false doctrine has been established as a result of Eph. 2:8 being construed to make fit all else they believe, i.e., election, predestination, atonement and eternal security, that by such "construing" have warped the gospel and that their voluminous commentaries are taken as thee gospel. This has been, in my estimation as well as others, a "bane" to Christianity. Results declare it.

"Historical evidence"?

"Results"?

Please clarify.

Thanks!

--David

 

[Ormly]

"Historical evidence"?

"Results"?

Please clarify.

Thanks!

--David

The history of the reform Christian church. Its history with its doctrine that has saddled man with an unnecessary life of perpetual guilt and uncertainty that has lead to presumption, carelessness, a false sense of security and the living in a fools paradise.

I am glad you gave me the opportunity to clarify. . . .

 

[St_Worm2]

The history of the reform Christian church. Its history with its doctrine that has saddled man with an unnecessary life of perpetual guilt and uncertainty that has lead to presumption, carelessness, a false sense of security and the living in a fools paradise.

I am glad you gave me the opportunity to clarify. . . .

How do you know these things to be true? What evidence do you rely upon to make the unqualified statements you made in this post and your last one?

As you said in post #4, "Results declare it". Which results? What real-life evidence (or "results") are you referring to?

Thanks!

--David

 

[Ormly]

How do you know these things to be true? What evidence do you rely upon to make the unqualified statements you made in this post and your last one?

As you said in post #4, "Results declare it". Which results? What real-life evidence (or "results") are you referring to?

Thanks!

--David

I have lived it and have been delivered from the shallow teaching that fosters failure in the life of a Christian. Now I know what is required, after the saying of the sinners prayer and wearing out my rededicator every meeting time, that has turned my captivity__ and it is NOT a works salvation I teach but the moving on to become a son of God.

 

[St_Worm2]

I have lived it and have been delivered from the shallow teaching that fosters failure in the life of a Christian. Now I know what is required, after the saying of the sinners prayer and wearing out my rededicator every meeting time, that has turned my captivity__ and it is NOT a works salvation I teach but the moving on to become a son of God.

So it is your personal experience that you offer as evidence? OK. How was your Christian life left in ruin by the teachings of the Reformed faith?

Or perhaps it was someone you know? How did this person, by knowing the doctrines of the Reformed faith, find their life in Christ to be a dismal failure? Details, please!!

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - on a COMPLETELY different note, your bio says you have been a Christian for 60+ years, but I looked at your picture and found that hard to believe. Were you a Christian before you were born? Just a little envious ..

 

[Ormly]

So it is your personal experience that you offer as evidence? OK. How was your Christian life left in ruin by the teachings of the Reformed faith?

Or perhaps it was someone you know? How did this person, by knowing the doctrines of the Reformed faith, find their life in Christ to be a dismal failure? Details, please!!

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - on a COMPLETELY different note, your bio says you have been a Christian for 60+ years, but I looked at your picture and found that hard to believe. Were you a Christian before you were born? ..

Ya dirty dog__blew my cover did you?

Listen, reform leaves one without the uncertainty of salvation, which is believed to be all there is to be understood from the gospel and that is all that is ever preached.
I was at an announced bible study and when leaving, asked this reform pastor, who BTW was older than me . , why he did no study but rather, again, gave his salvation testimony I had previously heard at every meeting time [given as preaching] prior. He replied, "Didn't you like what I said"? I said no, I had heard the same 'message' for the last 6 months. He replied, "You need to get on down the road- - You need to get saved". I laughed and left.

Question: Do you really know you of the "elect" as preached by the reform crowd. . . how can you really know? I have found little interest and no knowledge in all that circle I gave myself to. They were happy and content in their 'spiritual condition'; excusing their willful ignorance because everyone else did, which made it all easy to see it as 'innocence by association' and falsely considering themselves pure in God's sight with no doubts about not being left behind should the rapture ever occur simply because of their reciting the sinners prayer and the continual rededicating their lives at every meeting time which, by the way, you know they are more or less required to attend and do as proof of their election [I guess]. As a consequence the salvation message is preached at every meeting adnausm, because everyone is made to feel guilty and in a fresh need of salvation with of course the alter call following for rededication. Generally everyone responds for not to insult the preacher who needs to believe he is doing his job. With their guilt removed, they are good to go until later Sunday nite and then to Wednesday nite and then next Sunday morning___and the beat goes on.

Pathetic. . . . sorry

 

[St_Worm2]

Ya dirty dog__blew my cover did you?

Listen, reform leaves one without the uncertainty of salvation, which is believed to be all there is to be understood from the gospel and that is all that is ever preached.
I was at an announced bible study and when leaving, asked this reform pastor, who BTW was older than me . , why he did no study but rather, again, gave his salvation testimony I had previously heard at every meeting time [given as preaching] prior. He replied, "Didn't you like what I said"? I said no, I had heard the same 'message' for the last 6 months. He replied, "You need to get on down the road- - You need to get saved". I laughed and left.

Question: Do you really know you of the "elect" as preached by the reform crowd. . . how can you really know? I have found little interest and no knowledge in all that circle I gave myself to. They were happy and content in their 'spiritual condition'; excusing their willful ignorance because everyone else did, which made it all easy to see it as 'innocence by association' and falsely considering themselves pure in God's sight with no doubts about not being left behind should the rapture ever occur simply because of their reciting the sinners prayer and the continual rededicating their lives at every meeting time which, by the way, you know they are more or less required to attend and do as proof of their election [I guess]. As a consequence the salvation message is preached at every meeting adnausm, because everyone is made to feel guilty and in a fresh need of salvation with of course the alter call following for rededication. Generally everyone responds for not to insult the preacher who needs to believe he is doing his job. With their guilt removed, they are good to go until later Sunday nite and then to Wednesday nite and then next Sunday morning___and the beat goes on.

Pathetic. . . . sorry

You don't have to be sorry, that is pathetic! WOW!! I am happy to say that my 20+ years of experience with Reformed teachers and believers is the dead opposite of yours. Are you sure you're talking about Reformed/Calvinist folks?

The only place I've ever experienced any of this daily/weekly "re-dedication" stuff you speak of was at a Nazarene church here in town. In fact, I've never met a Reformed believer that thought his/her "salvation" ever needed to be 'refreshed' (their "walk", absolutely, but not their salvation).

We are the T.U.L.I.P. folk, which includes the "P" part for "Perseverance of the Saints" (or more crassly, "Once Saved, Always Saved"). I'm not sure why these "Reformed" believers of yours think they can regularly lose that which Reformed theology says cannot be lost ... once it is truly gained.

Weird!! I'm sorry as well that you have had such a bad experience with the Reformed faith. You might actually appreciate the one I have come to know.

Yours and His,
David

 

[Ormly]

You don't have to be sorry, that is pathetic! WOW!! I am happy to say that my 20+ years of experience with Reformed teachers and believers is the dead opposite of yours. Are you sure you're talking about Reformed/Calvinist folks?

The only place I've ever experienced any of this daily/weekly "re-dedication" stuff you speak of was at a Nazarene church here in town. In fact, I've never met a Reformed believer that thought his/her "salvation" ever needed to be 'refreshed' (their "walk", absolutely, but not their salvation).

We are the T.U.L.I.P. folk, which includes the "P" part for "Perseverance of the Saints" (or more crassly, "Once Saved, Always Saved"). I'm not sure why these "Reformed" believers of yours think they can regularly lose that which Reformed theology says cannot be lost ... once it is truly gained.

Weird!! I'm sorry as well that you have had such a bad experience with the Reformed faith. You might actually appreciate the one I have come to know.

Yours and His,
David

I'm not sure why these "Reformed" believers of yours think they can regularly lose that which Reformed theology says cannot be lost ... once it is truly gained.

I believe I used the term, "willful ignorance" which fosters this disposition: "I want Jesus but I want my life to stay as it is. I like it and my Pastor's preaching doesn't challenge me in any way. I like that, too"

Lets keep this going with the intention of learning from each other, through scripture and not commentary, while being careful not to let it go off in an untoward way.

 

[St_Worm2]

I believe I used the term, "willful ignorance" which fosters this disposition: "I want Jesus but I want my life to stay as it is. I like it and my Pastor's preaching doesn't challenge me in any way. I like that, too"

Lets keep this going with the intention of learning from each other, through scripture and not commentary, while being careful not to let it go off in an untoward way.

Hey Ormly, that sounds good. Let's try to figure out what we both truly believe about this or that and if we're not on the same page, let's figure out why. What (I'm assuming "Reformed") subject would you like to begin with?

--David
p.s. - this may be a little bit early to start this, but since you mentioned a lousy Reformed pastor, let me point one out that I think is great. You can, in fact, go to his website and check out his teaching. If you do, let me know what you think. BTW, there is a wealth of available video and audio teaching there on any number of subjects, but if you're interested in hearing his teaching about all things "Reformed", you might want to watch or listen to a chapter or two of "Chosen By God" or "What is Reformed Theology". Click here to check it out: Dr. R.C. Sproul/Teaching Series If you'd rather hear what he's doing today, then just go to the Home page of his website and click on "Audio Broadcast", which is his newest "Renewing Your Mind" radio broadcast.

 

[Ormly]

Hey Ormly, that sounds good. Let's try to figure out what we both truly believe about this or that and if we're not on the same page, let's figure out why. What (I'm assuming "Reformed") subject would you like to begin with?

--David
p.s. - this may be a little bit early to start this, but since you mentioned a lousy Reformed pastor, let me point one out that I think is great. You can, in fact, go to his website and check out his teaching. If you do, let me know what you think. BTW, there is a wealth of available video and audio teaching there on any number of subjects, but if you're interested in hearing his teaching about all things "Reformed", you might want to watch or listen to a chapter or two of "Chosen By God" or "What is Reformed Theology". Click here to check it out: Dr. R.C. Sproul/Teaching Series If you'd rather hear what he's doing today, then just go to the Home page of his website and click on "Audio Broadcast", which is his newest "Renewing Your Mind" radio broadcast.

Since you mentioned TULIP that seems the logical place to start.

RE: Sproul__ What is his main message/theme/drum beat, off the top of your head? In other words, what does he continually preach on?

 

[dcyates]

Indeed it does. The scriptures say this: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" Eph. 2:8 Those of Calvin, have taken this to mean the faith, by which man needs to turn to God for His salvation, is FIRST a gift of God. This because, man, of himself, is desperately wicked, totally depraved and thus totally incapable, per Rom 3:10, of having such needed faith. Eph 2:8 does NOT infer nor in any way imply that; historical evidence totally refutes it and yet a whole false doctrine has been established as a result of Eph. 2:8 being construed to make fit all else they believe, i.e., election, predestination, atonement and eternal security, that by such "construing" have warped the gospel and that their voluminous commentaries are taken as thee gospel. This has been, in my estimation as well as others, a "bane" to Christianity. Results declare it.

I'm probably being more than a little thick-headed here, because I'm not entirely sure what your point is with this thread. But, derived from what I think I understand it to be, in my opinion, the "faith" referred to in Eph 2.8 is not our faith, but rather the faithfulness of the Father and Christ. In other words (and again, this is if I understand you correctly), throughout the OT God promises to provide redemption for his people and, through Jesus Christ, he has fulfilled those promises and thus proved himself faithful to them.
I think you're right. I think that too many Christians have effectively reversed this text and instead interpreted it to say, "For by faith (i.e. your own faith) you have been saved through grace," rather than what it actually says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith."

 

[Ormly]

I'm probably being more than a little thick-headed here, because I'm not entirely sure what your point is with this thread. But, derived from what I think I understand it to be, in my opinion, the "faith" referred to in Eph 2.8 is not our faith, but rather the faithfulness of the Father and Christ.

Lets let scripture explain whose faith it is, ok? Here: "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,. . ." Romans 4:16 (KJV). Note it does not say 'will be' by grace or 'will be' sure. Now, don't you suppose that if faith was a gift of God that grace would be a, "no brainer"; surety, a "no brainer"? Why is it still a 'maybe' if it is not left to man to make a decision about his spiritual life unless it is by his own faith that he make such choices? Why do you suppose God is looking for those who will worship Him, even of those who have faith in Him?

Now that should NOT raise the issue of how Abraham got his faith but, more than that that by it was the reason God chose him to be the father of many nations, their seed being of the very same faith as their father__Abraham__not God. That is why the scripture repeatedly points up that whosoever believes, as Abraham, will be saved__ be of nations God promised him. If it was the gift of God's Faith, then it would stand to reason the passage would read differently and to be saying it was God who is the father our faith. Do you see that? Now, when Paul writes this it can make more sense as to what he was trying to convey as being that which gave him success in his Christian walk: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
Galatians 2:20 (KJV)

In other words (and again, this is if I understand you correctly), throughout the OT God promises to provide redemption for his people and, through Jesus Christ, he has fulfilled those promises and thus proved himself faithful to them.[/COLOR][/B]
I think you're right. I think that too many Christians have effectively reversed this text and instead interpreted it to say, "For by faith (i.e. your own faith) you have been saved through grace," rather than what it actually says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith."

I trust I have cleared that up for you. If not, where did I go wrong?

 

[dcyates]

Lets let scripture explain whose faith it is, ok? Here: "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,. . ." Romans 4:16 (KJV). Note it does not say 'will be' by grace or 'will be' sure. Now, don't you suppose that if faith was a gift of God that grace would be a, "no brainer"; surety, a "no brainer"? Why is it still a 'maybe' if it is not left to man to make a decision about his spiritual life unless it is by his own faith that he make such choices? Why do you suppose God is looking for those who will worship Him, even of those who have faith in Him?

Hmmm. Here I thought we were largely in agreement. Maybe I don't understand your point even as much as I thought I did -- which wasn't much to begin with. Nevertheless, soldiering on, you appear to be placing a lot more weight on the words "might be" that you've underlined above than is actually warranted by the text. In fact, the Greek term that's been rendered "might be" in the KJV is _______.
That's right. There's nothing there. These words are simply added in our English translations to help the sentence flow better in our language. Translating Rom 4.16 directly from the Greek into English, it reads: "It is therefore of faith, that according to grace, for to be sure the promise to all the, not to of the law only but also to the of faith of Abraham, who is father of us all." (To be quite honest, I'm not entirely sure why so much emphasis is placed on Paul's epistle to the Romans. I'm certainly not denying that it's canonical, nor that there isn't a ton of important teaching within it -- and it can hardly be gainsaid that the Spirit has inordinately used Romans to spur various spiritual revivals, both within individuals and in entire nations -- but nonetheless, there are more vexing exegetical and theological difficulties in Romans than in all his other letters combined. Yet, despite this, I can't count the number of times I've gone through Romans with virtually any Bible study group I've ever belonged to -- and can count on one or two fingers the number of times we've studied equally significant books like Ephesians, Titus, or Philemon. In almost all the college or seminary courses I've taken on the Pauline epistles or Pauline theology [save one notable exception, that being a Pauline Christology course I took with Gordon Fee], the vast bulk of them were spent primarily in Romans, secondarily in Galatians, then the Corinthian epistles, then Philippians, and whatever few minutes remained at the end of the semester was spent squeezing in whatever balance remained.)
The long and short of this being: One really shouldn't base any interpretation or theological understanding of this verse on words that are not even actually there.

Now that should NOT raise the issue of how Abraham got his faith but, more than that that by it was the reason God chose him to be the father of many nations, their seed being of the very same faith as their father__Abraham__not God. That is why the scripture repeatedly points up that whosoever believes, as Abraham, will be saved__ be of nations God promised him. If it was the gift of God's Faith, then it would stand to reason the passage would read differently and to be saying it was God who is the father our faith. Do you see that? Now, when Paul writes this it can make more sense as to what he was trying to convey as being that which gave him success in his Christian walk: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
Galatians 2:20 (KJV)

I trust I have cleared that up for you. If not, where did I go wrong?

Uhhh. Not even close, I'm afraid. And, as far as more accurately pinpointing exactly where it is you might have confused me, I'm also afraid I wouldn't even know where to begin.
Sorry.

 

[Ormly]

Hmmm. Here I thought we were largely in agreement. Maybe I don't understand your point even as much as I thought I did -- which wasn't much to begin with. . . . . . . . Uhhh. Not even close, I'm afraid. And, as far as more accurately pinpointing exactly where it is you might have confused me, I'm also afraid I wouldn't even know where to begin.
Sorry.

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.

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. 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.

 

[St_Worm2]

Since you mentioned TULIP that seems the logical place to start.

RE: Sproul__ What is his main message/theme/drum beat, off the top of your head? In other words, what does he continually preach on?

Hi Ormly, sorry for not getting back to you more quickly, but my father-in-law died last Friday, so this kind of thing has not been something I've had any time for.

I see that you have moved on a bit with the "faith" discussion with Dcyates, so I'll join in there. Perhaps it would be best to discuss the "T" part of TULIP by starting another thread?

As for Dr. Sproul, he was a theologian and seminary teacher for many, many years before becoming a pastor, so the subjects he regularly teaches on truly span the Christian faith. But if I had to pick a single thread that finds its way to the surface in many of those various subjects, I would say it is the "Sovereignty of God" specifically, and in general, Reformed thought (or the "Doctrines of Grace").

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Ormly, Ephesians 2:8 says, "by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God". To get started, it would probably help me if I understood what you believe the word "that" refers to in v8.

Thanks!

--David