"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Belief in your view demands certain actions and then God responds to those actions. Why? Because He's beholdin' to us. He promised, we done it, now show us the money -- at least as long as we can muster up this gut-level belief.​

Look at it another way --- God is either respondent to men, or causal to belief. If "causal", then He conspicuously selects only a few, and those whom He chooses are then saved (and the rest whom He ignores are hopelessly condemned).

Per Acts10:34-35, God welcoming those who do NOT fear Him nor seek righteousness, is called "partiality". So rather than "beholden" in responding to men's faith (which He would not be --- simply calling all, and allowing those who answer to come to the "feast") --- the alternative that you resist, is God being partial to "the few".

Quote:
We're simply saying it flatly -- God isn't responding to human actions, He's acting on His Own GRACE. He's changing us, He's cutting us to the heart, He's bearing a new spirit in us, and that spirit believes.
​

God is respondent in Acts10:34-36; in Rom3:26; in Heb11:6 --- and in so many other places.

Your view makes God not only "judge jury and executioner", but cause of the crime....

(And for the few, "partial"...)

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
strictly speaking ben , NO!

Romans 6

6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

sinning isn't so much a 'choice' as a serious defect .

When Paul said "how can we who died to sin still live in it " ?

he ruled out all Christian liberty to sin!
​

Flies in the face of "do not yield yourselves to sin, but consider yourselves dead to sin; submit yourselves as instruments of righteousness".

You're missing the theme of Rom6 (the choice of enslavement --- either to sin, or by obedience to righteousness and God), Rom7 (the war between the new nature, and the old-but-not-gone nature); and Rom8 (the solution to the war --- walk after the lusts of the flesh and die, or by the Spirit put to death the flesh and live).

Look at the level of refutations, clear again in my last few posts; and I'm still subject to claims that "Responsible Grace is completely destroyed/devastated/ruined/refuted". Is it?

Seems clear that "predestination" is the one claiming "imputed righteousness over clear sin", and "no ability for liberty TO sin" but "we still sin" (repeating the dilemma evident in the opening post --- why are we not regenerated enough to NOT sin?).

The man in 2Pet1:9 is supposedly "still saved" --- even though he has FORGOTTEN former purification from sins. Is he therefore anything BUT "impure"?

Eph5:5-6 says "the impure will not inherit the Kingdom".

It is clear that the view of "predestination" is the one that is "bankrupt", and the claims to the opposite are without basis....

 

[expos4ever]

You are mistakenly taking "unable to do good " in an absolute sense in order to build a case that it cannot be a Christian ,

You are right - I am indeed pointing out that it would be very strange indeed for Paul to say the following about a Christian:

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out

Your view that Paul is describing the Christian is indeed hard to accept given that we all know that Christians can indeed do good.

Why do you think that we do not need to take Paul at his word here?

however this will never fly because even unregenerate JEWS are able to do good ;

Matthew 7:11


If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Paul is complex and it is indeed hard to know when to take him literally or not. I agree that the unregenerate Jew can do good. You have to agree (obviously) that the Christian can do good. On balance though, even if we both admit that a literal take on what Paul says here cannot work with either of our positions, I submit that my position is less of stretch from literal truth than yours. Surely, we have to agree that unregenerate man is a lot less capable of doing good than the believer.

In any event, we know that the issue on the table is Torah. Paul is asking questions about the ability to follow the Torah. And that is not a question a Christian will be asking since Jesus is the end of the Torah in Pauline theology (at least in a certain sense):

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.


It might perhaps be barely possible to argue that Romans 7 is about the experience of the Christian if the questions that Paul were raising were in respect to some general moral principle. But they are not - the questionst that Paul raises are questions about the Law of Moses - the Torah. And that is why this material must be a description of the quandary of the Jew.

Paul as an unregenerate JEW had no problem with the Law ;

Phil 3:6

Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Hardly fits with ; 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

The irony here is that you seem to be arguing that a Jew zealous and blameless in respect to Torah would never says things like the stuff you underlined - "that I do not know how to perform that that which is good". Thus, you claim, my position is inconsistent because I need to deal with a Paul who keeps the Law blamelessly and yet claims he does not how to do good. So how could he keep the Torah.

I trust you realize that you are sitting on this very branch that you are sawing off. Because while what you say may seem to have merit - how could a Jew who kept Torah not know how to do good if he keeps Torah - you have also exposed the weakness in your position, since the reader will ask "How can a reborn Christian not have the means to to do good? - if anyone is able to do good it should be the reborn Christian".

In any event, and as I have already argued, Paul can indeed claim to be blameless in respect to Torah and yet also substantially unable to do anything more than observe Torah "externally". He explains this odd state that the Jew is in here in Romans 9:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.

Paul is not denying that the Jew under Torah is capable of keeping Torah - he himself claims to have kept it - but the Jew under Torah keeps the Torah in the wrong way - in an "as if by works" way.

This is what is so subtle and tricky about Paul and the Law. If we are not keenly aware of the subtleties of Paul's entire argument, it is easy to lose our way. Paul the Pharisee did keep Torah, but he kept in a "legalistic" or nomistic fashion. Apparently, that is not doing Torah in the sense that God intended. There is obviously a different, second way of doing Torah that leads to life - doing Torah by faith.

Now is not the time to talk about what that means. For the purposes of my argument about Romans 7, however, the fact that Paul identifies a way of keeping Torah that "misses the mark" gives me a legitimate opening to assert that Paul, as a Jew under Torah, was fundamentally unable to keep Torah in this second way that will, as per the above from Romans 9, lead to a "righteousness that is by faith". It is only in doing Torah the second way that Paul would "do good" or escape "slavery to sin".

So while the issues here are complex, I suggest that by Paul's own argument of Romans 9, there are these two ways of doing Torah, only one of which enables a person to "do good". And Paul the Pharisee was blameless in respect to Torah, but in this first "as if by works" sense.

 

[nobdysfool]

.

 

[expos4ever]

If my understanding of Paul's take on the Law is correct, I would not be surprised if some of you who have been reading my posts will be confused. The possible sources of confusion are these:

1. I claim that Paul's view of the Law is inherently extremely complex and subtle;

2. I would not dare to claim that my view necessarily reflects Paul's view;

3. I may not be choosing the perfect words - there are time where I have said things that I knew were a simplification of what I really believe Paul is saying, but I did not have the space to give the full treatment I would have liked to.

Let me briefly address the first of these. In some texts like these from Romans 10 and Ephesians 2, Paul seems to do away with the Torah:

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.


These text have Paul "doing away" with Torah. And yet we also have this one from Romans 3;

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law

And this one from Romans 9, this time rendered in the NASB which, I suggest, is a better translation in respect to this text than the NIV:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works

Note the stuff in bold - Paul is clearly suggesting that there is indeed a way of doing Torah that the Gentile "arrived at" to get "righteousness" but which the Jew did not. This means that, strangely, there is indeed a keeping of Torah that is still needed even in the "post-Jesus" world. And this is consistent with the Romans 3 material where Torah is "upheld"

So we seem to have Paul both affirming Torah and declaring its abolition.

No wonder we are struggling with Romans 7 and its treatment of the Torah.

To make matters more complicated, consider this from Leviticus 18

Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD

And yet in Romans 7, we have Paul saying this about the Torah:

For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died

In the Leviticus text, keeping Torah leads to life, in the Romans 7 text, Torah causes death.

I politely suggest that anyone who thinks Paul's take on the Law - the Torah - is easy to understand is simply not looking at all the things that Paul has written (not to mention othr books in the Bible).

These issues are indeed relevant to the Romans 7 matter. I claim that when the dust clears on figuring out all these seeming contradictions, we can indeed see that Paul, as a zealous Pharisee, could keep the Torah without actually doing the "good" that the Torah ultimately was designed to elicit in human beings. And therefore, the position that Romans 7 is about the Jew under Torah survives all these complexities. I hope to return to this.

 

[expos4ever]

Tut tut tut , that will not do , do I really need to show you that the whole chapter is surrounded by "we" , look at the intro , then follow the obvious implication right through till the conclusion , 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit

Paul isn't talking about his own experience because it is interesting , but because it is relevant to all believers. You make his exp disjointed from the overall meaning of the Chapter , and out of synch with Romans 6 and 8 .

The above was a response to my statement that in Romans 7 Paul no more identifies the mysterious "I" as being a reference to the Christian than he identifies the "I" as being the Jew under Torah.

The fact is that after Paul has given his treatment of this person struggling with the Law and sin, he says this:

24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Paul introduces a transtion here - he concludes his reflection on the nature of the status of the Jew under Torah with the question "who will deliver the Jew from this body of death?". Answer: Jesus. So by the time we get to Romans 8, Paul has already made the transition to a discussion about the Christian. This answers your critique - Paul can indeed be talking about the Jew under Torah in chapter and switch to a discussion of the Christian precisely because 7:24-25 implement the necesssary transition. Paul had been talking about the Jew under Torah and then declares that the Jew who accept Jesus is delivered from that wretched state. And so he seamlessly picks up the state of the Christian in chapter 8.

Besides, if you read Romans 8, you realize that Paul gives his opening statement "there is therefore now no condemnation" and then tells us why this is so, through the use of the "because" and the "for":

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[

Notice how my view on Romans 7 makes much more sense here. If as I claim, Romans 7 has been a treatment of the Jew under the Torah, then it makes perfect sense to say, with Paul, that the Jew has been set free from the very thing described in chapter 7 - the law of sin and death. Remember the following from the preceding chapter and compare it to what Paul says in 8:2 and 8:3

I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

This is exceedingly strong evidence that Romans 7 is about the Jew under Torah. In Romans 7, we have Paul describing the "I" as being subject to a law of sin that leads to death. In Romans 8, he says that the person in Christ has been set free from the law of sin and death through the Spirit. Clearly the person in Romans 7 cannot be a believer, but is rather the Jew who has been set free through Christ. The believer already has the Spirit.

 

[cygnusx1]

Quoted by NBF:
strictly speaking ben , NO!

Romans 6

6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

sinning isn't so much a 'choice' as a serious defect .

When Paul said "how can we who died to sin still live in it " ?

he ruled out all Christian liberty to sin!
​

Flies in the face of "do not yield yourselves to sin, but consider yourselves dead to sin; submit yourselves as instruments of righteousness".

You're missing the theme of Rom6 (the choice of enslavement --- either to sin, or by obedience to righteousness and God), Rom7 (the war between the new nature, and the old-but-not-gone nature); and Rom8 (the solution to the war --- walk after the lusts of the flesh and die, or by the Spirit put to death the flesh and live).

Look at the level of refutations, clear again in my last few posts; and I'm still subject to claims that "Responsible Grace is completely destroyed/devastated/ruined/refuted". Is it?

Seems clear that "predestination" is the one claiming "imputed righteousness over clear sin", and "no ability for liberty TO sin" but "we still sin" (repeating the dilemma evident in the opening post --- why are we not regenerated enough to NOT sin?).

The man in 2Pet1:9 is supposedly "still saved" --- even though he has FORGOTTEN former purification from sins. Is he therefore anything BUT "impure"?

Eph5:5-6 says "the impure will not inherit the Kingdom".

It is clear that the view of "predestination" is the one that is "bankrupt", and the claims to the opposite are without basis....

I suggest that if you think only those who do not sin will enter heaven that you concede almost no-one will be saved !

You will not see the Apostles or Prophets in Glory , and reducing everything down to a simplistic paradigm (man's free-will) doesn't answer any difficult question such as an Apostle , Paul , who called himself wretched , because of a problem with sin and a bigger problem , with his will ;

Romans 7

7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

[cygnusx1]

In Romans 7, we have Paul describing the "I" as being subject to a law of sin that leads to death. In Romans 8, he says that the person in Christ has been set free from the law of sin and death through the Spirit. Clearly the person in Romans 7 cannot be a believer, but is rather the Jew who has been set free through Christ. The believer already has the Spirit.

I am afraid that this is a rather simplistic view of things , it reminds me of those who used to say "we all need to get out of Romans 7 and into Romans 8 " , my answer is that isn't what the text teaches , rather , and this is almost always overlooked , the struggle in Romans 7 continues as long as a person has flesh ; the reason why Romans 7 is obviously speaking about Christian experience is that Christians know that they cannot keep the Law ; for to break even one command (Paul submitted that he coveted) means breaking the entire Law. That goes for Christians too !

The liberty of Romans 8 (no condemnation) is a fact , but it is not TOTAL liberty ; Romans 7 ends with a sober and realistic conclusion and we ignore it at our peril ;

Romans 7

7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

[nobdysfool]

Are we required to BE righteous? Or is righteousness "imputed to us, over our sins"? The concept of "imputed righteousness" is not based on Scripture. If "righteousness" is no longer about behavior but a forensic legal standing that is "imputed", then we have no need for a Savior, nor repentance, nor have we any accountability.

A clear demonstration of a lack of understanding of what Imputation is, how it is accomplished, and on what basis it is accomplished. You make a statement that "The concept of "imputed righteousness" is not based on Scripture." No proof is offered. Just faulty reasoning based on wrong understanding. No understanding that our life is hid with Christ in God, so that as Paul says, it is not I, but Christ who lives in me, and the life I live, I live by the Grace of God.

What is being missed here is that while there is a legal declaration that God has made, it is based on the reality that by being joined to Christ, one has died with Him. The penalty for sin does not reach beyond the death of the sinner. By being joined to Christ, we not only died with Him, but were raised with Him to newness of life. That is the basis of the imputation of righteousness by God.

Righteousness is not "imputed over our sins" as you falsely claim. Righteousness is imputed because we are joined to Christ. Christ bore the penalty for our sins, died and was raised for our justification. We, being joined to Him, are counted as having died, and raised again, our sins having been removed, because their penalty has been satisfied. We are declared righteous because of our union with Christ. It does not "paper over" our sins, because they have been washed away.

Clearly, God's position is "ongoing forgiveness of sins" --- see 1Jn1:7-9, and Matt8:12. But if those sins are covered by "imputed righteousness", then how can God SEE them, let alone FORGIVE them? "Imputed" implies we are as righteous as Christ, in SPITE of what we do.

Ben, you really do need to get an education. Our sins are not covered by imputation, as you so falsely charge, they are covered by the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ. Imputation of righteousness means that we are counted as righteous as Christ, on the basis of what HE did. You have a false and fatally flawed understanding of this most basic of Christian doctrines. You are on very thin ice here Ben, and you need to stop speaking of that which you clearly know nothing of.

Once again Heb12 offers itself against this idea; for if righteousness is imputed, if regeneration is sovereignly-decreed (and therefore we irresistibly follow our "changed natures"), then what value has discipline?

And the false conclusions just keep on coming. You jump subjects here, from imputation to regeneration. Obviously, you're engaging in your favorite sport, that of equating dissimilar concepts. Get this through your skull, Ben, Regeneration is sovereignly accomplished. God does not regenerate by decree from afar, He is present and the active agent in the regeneration of a man. Your characterizations of regeneration are false, they are wrong, and they are ignorant. You have been told this several times already, but you continue to post these falsehoods as though no one ever answered them, and corrected you.

Secondly, regeneration does not "make" someone "irresistibly" follow their changed nature. That is a misapplication of the "I" of TULIP, which is IRRESISTIBLE GRACE. Your entire question here is a straw man, because no Calvinist has ever stated that regeneration irresistibly cause men to always follow their new natures, thereby removing the need for discipline. That is a falsehood, and a false characterization of Calvinism, and one you have repeated many times, despite clear and repeated corrections.

What discipline, if we are sinless? In Heb12 we clearly have the right to REFUSE His discipline --- and the consequences are clearly stated, "then we are illegitimate and not sons".

No Calvinist has ever claimed that regeneration, and/or imputation of righteousness makes one sinless. That is a falsehood of your own invention. As such it is bearing false witness, and I charge you before God and these witnesses that you cease these false representations of Calvinism. You either are clearly deficient in knowledge, or you are deliberately misrepresenting these things in order to bolster your own view, knowing that they are false, but choosing to do so anyway because for you, the end justifies the means. That is a good definition of deliberate sin, Ben.

Funny that you refer to refusing God's discipline, as a "right". That exposes a lot about your doctrines, and your beliefs. It shows that rebellion is at the heart of your view.

Contrary to the concept that "there are two standings of a man before God" (a legal standing, and a fellowship one), Scripture only asserts ONE standing. One relationship --- no, one fellowship.

Yet another straw man. No Calvinist has ever claimed that "there are two standings of a man before God." That is fiction, it is false and it is bearing false witness

We are "in Christ", and He is "in us".

You need to learn what that means, Ben, because it is painfully and blatantly obvious from this post that you have no clue what that actually means.

Christ in us is far, far more than "fellowship".

1Jo 3:3 And everyone who has this hope {fixed} on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

1Jo 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

1Jo 3:5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.

1Jo 3:6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.

1Jo 3:7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;

1Jo 3:8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.

1Jo 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1Jo 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. ​

Note that this quoted section does not allow "practicing sin", and not that it begins with "purifies HIMSELF".

This aligns with "whoever humbles himself as this child, is greatest in the kingdom". Matt18:4

Humbles himself. Purifies himself. Saves himself. None of these deny "Jesus is the only Savior'', nor that "washing of regeneration is of the Spirit" --- but the believer's participation in that "humbling/saving/purifying", by personal faith, is undeniable.

"Therefore you are to be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt5:48 A verse that makes no sense under an "imputed-righteousness" view...

False weights and measures, Ben. You are conflating different things and calling them all the same thing, when they are clearly not. Calvinists have never denied the synergistic nature of our walk with Christ, AFTER we have been regenerated by God, and washed of our sins, and justified by God, and imputed with the righteousness of Christ by God. None of those things can we do for ourselves. Once those things are done by God, then we synergistically walk with Him, learn from Him, increase in our sanctification in Him, and learn to overcome sin. Christ is our example, learning to obey by the things He suffered, and we are His pupils. As Jesus Himself said, "No pupil is greater than his master". What you want to present as all one-sided (things we must do) are synergistic, "God working in us both to will and to do of His Good Pleasure." Yes, we have a part to play, but it is not the only part, nor is it the whole of the matter. Your focus is skewed and distorted.

 

[expos4ever]

In Romans 7, we have Paul describing the "I" as being subject to a law of sin that leads to death. In Romans 8, he says that the person in Christ has been set free from the law of sin and death through the Spirit. Clearly the person in Romans 7 cannot be a believer, but is rather the Jew who has been set free through Christ. The believer already has the Spirit.

I am afraid that this is a rather simplistic view of things , it reminds me of those who used to say "we all need to get out of Romans 7 and into Romans 8 " , my answer is that isn't what the text teaches , rather , and this is almost always overlooked , the struggle in Romans 7 continues as long as a person has flesh ; the reason why Romans 7 is obviously speaking about Christian experience is that Christians know that they cannot keep the Law ; for to break even one command (Paul submitted that he coveted) means breaking the entire Law. That goes for Christians too !

The liberty of Romans 8 (no condemnation) is a fact , but it is not TOTAL liberty ; Romans 7 ends with a sober and realistic conclusion and we ignore it at our peril ;

Romans 7

7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

I think you are making an incorrect argument when you assert that Romans 7 is about the Christian because it describes a struggle that the Christian arguably experiences. The problem with this argument is that it overlooks the possibility that there is another set of persons who have a struggle - and that would be the Jew under Torah. When you make this statement, you seem to simply assume that there is no other group the text could be describing:

the reason why Romans 7 is obviously speaking about Christian experience is that Christians know that they cannot keep the Law

Your argument appears to be of this form;

1. Romans 7 describes the struggle within an unspecified person between the power of sin and the desire to do good.

2. Christians experience a struggle between the power of sin and the deisre to do good;

3. Therefore, Romans 7 is about Christians.

Statements 1 and 2 are correct, but statement 3 is not a valid inference.

This is like arguing:

1. A certain text describes an unspecified person's struggle with getting up early in the morning;

2. Fred Smith experiences a struggle with getting up in the morning.

3. Therefore, the text in question must be about Fred Smith.

To repeat: The fact that Romans 7 describes a struggle that the Christian might experience in no way implies that the Romans 7 text is about the Christian, since we know that there are other groups whose struggle is also subject to the description in Romans 7. One of these groups is the Jew under Torah.

Besides, Christians are not commanded to keep the Torah anyway, so the Christian should not even be trying to keep the Law. Paul makes it clear in Galatians that the believer is not to keep the Torah - the written code.

You have not addressed the substantial content of my post which really does rule out the possibiity that Romans 7 is about Torah. Here is the argument in point form:

1. The person described in Romans 7 is experiencing a "law" of sin that leads to death:

but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

2. The Christian in Romans 8 is being described as having been set free from from this law of sin and death.

2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death

3. If the position of cygnus is correct - that the person in Romans 8 is a Christian - then we have the following statements:

a. The Christian is subject to the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 7)

b. The Christian is set free from the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 8)

These statements are inconsistent. Therefore, assuming we agree that the statement from Romans 8 is about the Christian, the Romans 7 cannot be descriptive of the experience of the Christian - one cannot be both subject to the effects of a law and yet also releaded from its effect.

I notice you did not directly address the content of my post in your reply. You merely claimed that because the Romans 7 material does characterize what the Christian experiences, then it must be about the Christian. This is simply not a valid conclusion to draw as has been shown. It also describes the experience of the Jew under Torah who wants to do good things but finds that he cannot.

Perhaps you can explain to us how a Christian can be subject to law of sin working in his members and yet, at the same time, also be set free from that very same law.

 

[nobdysfool]

epos4ever, I hope you realize that you have nearly derailed this thread. If you want to continue to pursue this subject, please start a thread and move the discussion there.

This thread has nothing to do with the subject you are pursuing.

thank you.

 

[expos4ever]

As to your point that if Paul wanted us to understand that he was talking about the Jews, he would have been explicit and mentioned "the Jews", you should know that this very challenge can be directed at you. If Paul intended us to see the Romans 7 discourse as a treatment of the state of Christians, why does he not explicitly identify struggling person as a Christian? You are, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, in the same quandary I am in. Paul never explicitly identifies who he is talking about.

In verse 24 of chapter 7, Paul asks:

Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

we are not in the same boat at all , it seems you wish to muddy the waters by insisting Paul is speaking not of himself but the Jews , then you wish to say he is speaking of himself but past tense (so that it still applies to the Jews) but the text is current , Paul spoke in the present tense where it matters ;

7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

It is clear for all to see how you have deliberately only quoted part of this text , hoping no-one would notice the tense .

I have repeatedly explained precisely how the tense issue coheres perfectly with the view I am espousing. I have engaged in no deliberate misrepresentation and my case here is clear and correct. And it is not my case - it is Paul's case, anyway.

I will repost what I wrote earlier since that earlier material clearly establishes that Pauls tense-transitions are entirely consistent with my assertion that Paul is writing about the plight of the Jew under Torah:

One more time. Paul begins his treatment in the past tense:

Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

Paul is speaking about the status of the Jew under Torah in the past. Long before Paul was born - that is to say in Paul's past - the Torah was given to Jews.

Later Paul switches to the present:

but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out

The reason that Paul switches to the present is that he wants to make the point that even in the present, even after their Messiah has come - the Jew remains (in the present) in slavery to the Torah.

It is therefore clear that my proposal that Paul is talking about the status of the Jew under the Torah works perfectly well with the "past to present" transition that we get in Romans 7: the Jew was given the Torah in the past and it gave him problems in the past. The Jew who rejects Jesus in the present persists in the problematic state of being under Torah and a slave to sin.

I trust that this settles this particular issue. The argument that Paul is talking about the Jew under Torah in Romans 7 makes perfect sense of the "past to present" transition.

 

[expos4ever]

epos4ever, I hope you realize that you have nearly derailed this thread. If you want to continue to pursue this subject, please start a thread and move the discussion there.

This thread has nothing to do with the subject you are pursuing.

thank you.

You may be right. While it is clear that Romans 7 is not descriptive of the experience of the Christian, this fact may not be relevant to the issue at hand. On the other hand, these things have a complex way of being connected to each other. If I want to say anything more on this matter, I will start another thread.

I am happy to "take the fight elsewhere". So if there are responses to me on the Romans 7 question, I will take them up in another thread.

 

[frumanchu]

Oh give me a break --- 1Cor2:14 is completely carried. There are no grounds to presume the"spiritual things" of verse 14, are not the same "spiritual things" of verse 13, 12, 11, 10, and 9.

With respect, what kind of debate is it to just assert "we've proven it", without any support?

What kind of a debate it is to conspicuously ignore direct arguments to your positions and then act as though they have never been given?

(hint: it's neither honest nor respectful)

You're just pretending these points have never been refuted.

 

[frumanchu]

Oh? Please tell us how "poured", is not an aspect of the regenerating Spirit.

Nobody said it wasn't. The Spirit that regenerates is the same Spirit that is poured out upon us. You act as though we've argued that the Spirit it poured out before belief when not a single Calvinist has made that argument.

Meanwhile, according to you, the Disciples were all unregenerate believers all the way up until Pentecost. You won't admit it...you will hide behind excuses and continue to ignore it...but the fact remains that it is the inescapable conclusion of your theology.

Tell us how "poured" somehow FOLLOWS "regeneration".

Spirit regenerates, man believes, Spirit is poured out upon him to indwell him.

But that doesn't exist in Scripture; God does not ZAP men with "monergistic regeneration" and then condemn those who were unlucky enough not to get sovereignly ZAPPED by God.

Right...as though they weren't sinners justly condemned for their sin and their persistent unwillingness to obey God.

How can you claim you believe in original sin when your teachings so clearly depends upon its non-existence?

Perhaps God has not GIFTED that repentance to me????

Pretty bold of you to make so light of bearing false witness against those you claim to be your brothers in Christ. Need I speak of the implications in light of your teachings?

 

[drstevej]

Are we required to BE righteous? Or is righteousness "imputed to us, over our sins"? The concept of "imputed righteousness" is not based on Scripture. If "righteousness" is no longer about behavior but a forensic legal standing that is "imputed", then we have no need for a Savior, nor repentance, nor have we any accountability.

Your theology is really Catholic not Protestant. Luther called forensic justification the article of the standing or falling church.

Ironically your view would also square with Mormonism.

Joseph Smith changed Romans 8:30 substituting sanctification for justification....

whom he justified, them he glorified (KJV) >> him he sanctified, him he glorified. (JST)

 

[expos4ever]

Your theology is really Catholic not Protestant. Luther called forensic justification the article of the standing or falling church.

Ironically your view would also square with Mormonism.

Joseph Smith changed Romans 8:30 substituting sanctification for justification....

whom he justified, them he glorified (KJV) >> him he sanctified, him he glorified. (JST)

I am not sure I am agreeing with Ben when I assert that the scriptures never teach that we are imputed with the righteousness of Jesus or God, but they do teach that we are imputed with a status of righteousness.

Paul means what he says in Romans 2 - the criteria or basis for ultimate salvation on the great day of judgement is indeed the "good works" that are manifest in the life of the believer. But the person who has placed their faith in Jesus can be assured that the outcome of that judgement will be favourable - that we will be deemed to be "righteous" on that last day - precisely and only because we are given the Spirit, and the Spirit will ensure that the necessary good works are indeed performed. So it is correct to say that the Christian is imputed with status of righteouness in this specifically anticipatory sense.

 

[drstevej]

I am not sure I am agreeing with Ben when I assert that the scriptures never teach that we are imputed with the righteousness of Jesus or God, but they do teach that we are imputed with a status of righteousness.

Imputed/forensic justification means that Christ's righteousness is legally credited to our account and satisfies His demand resulting in a declaration of righteousness. Luther's term was an "alien righteousness" that is the righteousness of another is the basis for our salvation.

In sanctification we are made righteous (infused righteousness) which is the basis for reward in Heaven.

 

[frumanchu]

Horse manure. The notion that all future sins are forgiven in a moment at initial belief and justification was not taught by any Christian theologian before the 16th C. and John Calvin. It's in fact EXACTLY about Calvinism. Catholics and Orthodox have never accepted that belief as do not many modern day Protestants.

FYI, the Roman Catholic Church did not formally reject the doctrines you so cavalierly discard until after the Protestant Reformation began. Arguing as though you have history on your side is laughable given your demonstrated ignorance of Christian history.

The implications of your statements here are so staggering I can only hope for your sake that you do not fully understand them...these are issues at the very heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Is your Christianity based on what you and your fallen intellect consider "logical" rather than a proper consideration of scriptural texts?

I find it the height of irony that you appeal to the "fallen intellect" of man after all this, given how systematically you have undermined any notion of man's fallen nature having any real impact whatsoever upon his intellect. You've done little more than pay lip service to Original Sin for the sake of giving the appearance of orthodoxy.

I also find it ironic that you appeal to logic at all given how many times you've been demonstrated to be employing logical fallacies to prove your points. Of course, what you fail to understand is that logic is the basic means by which we understand anything. So if you're now saying that as Christians our logic is still unreliable because of our "fallen intellect" then you completely remove any rational basis for understanding Scripture. This is not surprising of course, since logic and reason are toxic to many of your teachings, but it's also very telling to those not familiar with the scope of your teachings. It is in fact symptomatic of the times, as the Emergent Church is very blatant about shunning logic and reason as a rational basis for belief, instead embracing humanistic philosophy and emotion-based "belief."

A false comfort is no comfort worth having --- and in this case it is dangerous. In fact this "comfort" you speak of was denied to every Christian for the first 1600 years of Christianity. Odd indeed that God would allow all before Calvin to be denied this "comfort" if it were true.

Of course, here again we have the raison d'être for "Responsible Grace" theology: denying the comfort of security in salvation. It's the end you've used to justify the most ridiculous of means, and I've watched you make the argument that if we're right then your being wrong is no big deal, while if we're wrong you could be making all the difference in the world. That's the same kind of reasoning that leaves my inbox flooded with spamming chain emails about Disney's email tracking service. The fact is that your being wrong DOES make a difference.

The problem for you is the man doesn't have it anymore lest the phrase "FORMER purification" would not have been used. Nice try though...

Oh right...yet another example where we ignore the clear deictic shift in voice and speak as though Peter is speaking of a particular individual even though anybody with a reasonable level of reading comprehension knows that this is speaking hypothetically for the purpose of illustration.

Oh, but that's a "five-way" and so we just automatically dismiss that argument without having to actually refute it, right?

Chapter 2:
Beware of false prophets and false teachers, who never cease from sin --- they have eyes full of adultery, revel all day long; they entice the truly escaped back into sensuality. For if after having ESCAPED defilements through the true-saved-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and then become entangled in them and overcome, last state is worse than the first; better to have never known the way of righteousness, than having known it to have turned away from the holy commandment.

Never mind that this has been explained dozens of times, and that you're here guilty of yet another case of imposing your doctrine upon the text.

Chapter 3:
God does not decree (boulemai) any to perish, but patiently makes room for all to repent.

THIS IS A BLATANT MISTRANSLATION OF SCRIPTURE

It has been pointed out numerous times now that there is NO WAY you can make the Lord the subject of the verb choreo in 2 Peter 3:9, and that you cannot find a single credible Greek scholar anywhere that would support such a translation...and yet you continue to post it.

This is the fruit of "Responsible Grace" theology: clear and wanton rewriting of the Scriptures to support its teachings.

1 Cor 3:15

 

[expos4ever]

Imputed/forensic justification means that Christ's righteousness is legally credited to our account and satisfies His demand resulting in a declaration of righteousness. Luther's term was an "alien righteousness" that is the righteousness of another is the basis for our salvation.

In sanctification we are made righteous (infused righteousness) which is the basis for reward in Heaven.

I do not agree that this is the correct interpretation of the scriptures. For I example, I think we need to take Paul literally when he asserts in Romans 2 that eternal life is granted according to, that is on the basis of, the good works that are evidenced in our lives. He is not saying "you get into heaven through something other than good works and the good works determine your reward over and above getting into heaven":

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Would you please provide some scriptural arguments for your position on the imputation matter, either directly or via reference to posts that have already been written.