The Meaning of "FOREKNEW" in Romans 8:29

[Received]

Friend, I would very much imagine that offense is not your intention. But if we are naturally prideful, why are you choosing this post alone to be the one that resembles a prideful theological comment? Would you not make remarks regarding every post offered? I am not here for ostentatious display -- I am here to talk theology and, in this case, soteriology. Via biblical reference I am hoping to reveal what I hold as evidence for my claim in relation to the sinfulness of man, and how he is responsible for it. My claim in posts such as yours offered as futile revolves around what I see as insufficient evidence regarding your accussation -- an emotional strawman. How am I appealing to emotion? And where am I admitting a strawman? I would like to think that my posts are at least moderately rational and therefore involve moderately reasonable responses -- with scripture and logic. If you are willing to debate, please join us. From what I can tell, you appear very noble-minded.

 

[MizDoulos]

Please note: A message was placed on page 4 to keep on topic and direct any personal comments toward each other via e-mail or the private message option. Let's not see this thread go downhill or it will be closed.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[frumanchu]

As for Romans 1, if the capacity to respond is totally in this revelation, why send a savior? And how do you know that those who indeed do come to salvation have not 'picked up' on a message from the cosmos or their conscience, or some other supernatural revelation eternally shown to them? The ultimate conclusion is that without understanding of Christ, there can be no faith. And if Christ is not preached, how can you blame man for not apprehending the message that would otherwise set him free?

The point of Romans 1 is not that the capacity to respond is totally in this revelation, it's to show that man is in clear and willfull rebellion. If man did not have an innate sense of the existence of his Creator, he wouldn't be in rebellion against God because he wouldn't even know He was there. The general revelation of God in nature and in the conscience ultimately serves as a witness AGAINST man as he rejects that revelation. Either way, it does not eradicate the need to send a savior. Christ's primary purpose was NOT to let the world know that "hey, there IS a God you know." but rather to actually SAVE His people. In regards to the last question, you again leave the man who doesn't hear the gospel as the victim instead of the guilty. Returning to Romans 1, the argument put forth by Paul is that ALL men are WITHOUT EXCUSE in regards to rejection of God. There is ample evidence in the general revelation of God in creation and in the conscience, and all men by default wilfully reject such revelation. Thus the man who doesn't hear the Gospel is still justifiably condemnable for his sinfulness.

So it goes with sinful man, whose rebellion is firstly psychological. Paul reveals rather interestingly in Romans 7 that sin is not merely committing what you know to be wrong; certainly it is this as well (James 4:17). He reveals that sin is a power; something that man is victim of. Man's accountability is perfectly relative to his knowledge of the wrong, and I would warrant his capacity and motivation to repent. This is why the law is impossible to follow perfectly; man, being imperfect and slave to sin, and therefore without the agapas that makes it possible to nullify the law and fulfill it as Jesus claims, is totally unable to fulfill it in his own power. In effect, the law becomes unredeemed man's tutor in bringing him to Christ (Galatians 3:22-25).

Again, you're painting man as the victim instead of the guilty. In such light, God is OBLIGATED to provide all men with clear and direct revelation of the Truth in order to maintain His own justice in condemning the unregenerate. He is under no such obligation, and man is anything but a victim. The 'don't blame me, I was born this way' defense does't cut it.

But those who commit what they know to be wrong are precisely those who sin; James reveals this perfectly (4:17). All I am claiming is that there is that sin encompasses man two ways: his soul, which is the common condition of all men; and his heart, which comes about by him committing what he knows to be wrong; herein lies the rebel. And yet man is rewarded according to his deeds in the here and now. My only conclusion is that those who are in existence without the message are sinners by nature of their souls and therefore condemned by the very nature of being the person they are, and there are those in existence who know the message and are making an attempt to respond to it, or are refusing it blatently: blasphemy of the spirit (Luke 12:10). Those who end up in Hell, then, are simply those who will have nothing of the truth -- who love evil, as Jesus says. Such an attitude can come about regardless of the revelation of Christ.

I disagree. I think man commits what he knows to be wrong BECAUSE his heart is impure, not that man's heart becomes impure by his knowingly sinning. For the latter to happen, man would have to desire to sin before he desired to sin

But if a man with this knowledge hears of arrogant and over-zealous preaching, given that understanding the median by which faith comes, what must we conclude? Men naturally flocked to Jesus; He was, and is, beautiful in spirit and soul. And yet even those who did not -- who perceived Him as a criminal -- were guilty of no crime. Indeed, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23:34, NASB). Romans 1 does not encapsulate man; it encapsulates men who 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness'. If it was a case of the former, men could not be blamed for actions they intuitively commit, for it is their very nature to do so. It would be like blaming a man for breathing.

Again, you're paying lipservice to Original Sin by saying we're not justifiably condemnable as fallen creatures. There is an abundance of Scripture supporting man's depravity from birth. You're running to the 'don't blame me...I was born this way' position.

Is this rebellion a part of his sinful nature, or not? If it is not a part of the sin working in him, how can he rebel against the light? He would not then be a rebel. Certainly, man can work himself up into a rebel, by committing acts of evil wilfully, in revelation of what is good and bad given the specific situations. But we are speaking of the basic nature of man -- how he is when he is conceived. If this rebellious nature is something he cannot control, how can he be blamed? If this rebellious nature is indeed something he can control, why preach the gospel? Men are saved through faith; the absence of sin without faith is impossible. It is either/or.

Read Psalm 51:5.

Post-mortem salvation, which would encompass a God of love without compromise; or the idea that God is unjust, which is hardly something I am willing to settle with.

Does this mean you support post-mortem salvation?

God is 'obligated' to nothing; again, we are falsely juxtaposing love and desert. All I am claiming is that a God of love who forces men into existence knowing perfectly that they are unable to save themselves will without hesitation commit to the idea of any sacrifice necessary to insure the blessedness of their souls.

And again 'don't blame me, I was born this way.' The problem is that the God of love that you're promoting is not the God of the Bible. I'm not saying that God is not love...such is explicitly stated in Scripture. But your notion of what that means in terms of how God acts and thinks is flawed. If He were as you say, you will have a hard time explaining His instructions to the Jews to utterly destroy men, women and CHILDREN. We're talking about dashing babies against rocks. How would you reconcile this with what you're putting forth?

Of course, we must look at the ultimate edification of man from a teleological standpoint. The burden lies on the creator only if the creator is apathetic towards what He brought about. This is common sense. If Joe buys a dog, he must take care of it. The point I do want to get across is that love is not deserved. I do not deserve the love of anyone, for the realm of desert does not encompass love; that is debt. Man, being a rebel by nature of sin that constrains him, does not deserve the love of God. And yet it would be contradictory for God to not give it, for love cannot help but give. The conundrum emits a paradox. The essence of existence is that God creates man with freedom, the wondrous cosmos, the natural loves, and everything intrinsically good, and gives him the opportunity to seek Him, or not. Certainly, no man seeks God in His own power (Romans 3). But God seeks man; and He rewards every man according to His deeds apart from his ignorance (Proverbs 24:12). On these potentially infinite revelations, man responds to the grace of God until he finds Him. Without this freedom, and the freely offered love of God -- rather than an obligation of debt --, worship is absolutely futile.

If that is the case, then God is largely ineffective in persuading men to choose Him. Furthermore, you've returned it to man's abilities. If God has the power to work within time, and God is omniscient, then surely He can know what it would take to lead one to Him. You have to explain then why He doesn't bring about what He could. You're arguing for man's free will constraining God's actions, but when you reason that out it leaves God more or less impotent to do anything except sit and watch.

I would agree that I am blaspheming against a semi-benevolent god. But this is not what I hold as true. God is love. He loves men into existence. God is not reconciled to us -- nowhere in the New Testament is this idea implied. We, on the contrary, are reconciled to God. We cannot take appearance as evidence, for what appears may be a superficial covering behind what actually exists.

I think that you have a wholly unbalanced view of the love of God which has Him actually foresaking and shedding His other attributes (which define Him as God).

 

[frumanchu]

Continuing...

The will, in itself, is neither: it is amoral. Only when it is applied to specific situations may it be labeled either good or bad. Of course, the will is not what is the important context in scripture; faith is. Faith itself is impossible to be willed; we may will specific actions in faith already have. But faith is evidence. It is faith that the righteous walk by (Hab. 2:4). But it is also faith that man is incapable of producing without understanding, as Paul reveals in his call to missions in Romans 10. Indeed, the very opposite of sin is faith (Romans 14:23). I would therefore say, given this understanding, that the unregenerate does not have any desire to praise God, for God, accessible only through Christ, has not been preached to him. And this is not his fault, and therefore not his wilfull rebellion; unless he refuses what he knows to be true.

The opposite of sin is faith? No, the opposite of sin is obedience, which COMES from faith (read the verse again). God only accessible through Christ? Yes, in terms of approachability, but not in terms of awareness. We are aware of the existence of God apart from knowledge of Christ. Thus the rebellion is still wilfull because man knows God is. Your understanding of the will of man is completely backwards.

You say we have a sin nature and we desire everything against God unless God emits His grace upon us. This seems to me to be sufficient room to argue that sin is something that man, without the help of God, is victim to. He cannot help his state of action, for until he admits faith, he is still in sin, for faith is the opposite of sin. With this in mind, it does not make sense to me how God can force men into existence, sinful under the curse of Adam, and demand that they refuse sin and come to Him unless they are capable, in their own power, to accept Him by faith.

Now you proceed from a false premise (that faith is the opposite of sin, not obedience). Sin is transgression of the Law (not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law), and transgression's opposite is obedience. Your false premise leads to your false conclusions. Sin is not something man is a victim of, it is something he is in slavery to. Big difference, because man submits himself to sin. Consider Rom 6:16: "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Paul goes on to say that the choice to free oneself from slavery to sin and submit as a slave to righteousness is from the heart.

But if refusal to repent is itself hardness of heart, what makes you believe that Pharoah's refusal to repent was not the initial force that brought about God's decree to further harden his heart? Indeed, there are relative degrees to refusing repentance. The scripture quoted does not ameliorate your cause. All it does is reveal that God will indeed harden Pharoah's heart. This speaks of nothing about who was the cause of initial rebellion. And it is precisely cowardice that I am advocating as the cause by which God further hardened Pharoah's heart. Cowardice is weakness of the heart; incapability to carry out what you otherwise would indeed do.

But you must concede that it allows for the possibility of God choosing the level of restraining grace imposed upon the unregenerate. God works actively to restrain evil in the world, and as such can effectively harden a person simply by withholding that restraint. God was clear in the case of Joseph and his brothers that what men mean for evil, He can mean for good.

If this context of scripture were according to your hermeneutical standings, and if I were an unregenerate, through this claimed critique of God's will, I am giving Him glory, for I am the one that God is intentionally creating for destruction. Therefore, I am acting justly, for I am adhering to God's will. Why are you scolding me? Does this reveal how absurd this form of interpretation is? God is not only forcing men to be evil contrary to their freedom, but blaming them for doing something they are incapable of carrying out; namely, repentance (Romans 2:5).

No, He is forcing nobody to be evil...He is allowing to be as they choose (evil). Again their 'incapability' of repenting is the effective result of their unwillingness to do so.

As far as claiming that you would be just in adhering to God's will that you be condemned, that's rediculous. Even if cooperation with God's will were a righteous act in and of itself (which in the case of the unregenerate it is not), it still does not excuse you from the rest of your sin for which you are condemnable.

What you have done though is expose a flaw in the Arminian reasoning regarding free will...namely that the choice is not a matter of whether one chooses or rejects Christ, but rather a matter of whether or not one has the choice (even in the absence of cognitional knowledge) whether or not to cooperate with God's elective purposes. That is not a choice we are presented with, because by the very nature of God's election we do not have knowledge of whether or not we are elect prior to making our decision for Christ.

Again, given the context of Proverbs 16:9 at the very least, God's will conforms to man's will, and therefore the destruction God is wroughting is perfectly on the basis of man's will. He created man with freedom, and therefore has intrinisic respect for it. Indeed, if God is intentionally creating destructed souls, and what God does is good, what does this say of Paul who desires the salvation of his countrymen only verse prior to this theological admittance (9:3)? Does his desire to save those who are otherwise being planned to eternally die by God's hand mean that his will is contrary to God's? It seems so. Therefore, Paul's common call to repentance, fueled by the very agapas that inevitably takes place within the redeemed soul following conversion, is in absolute contradiction with God's, who intentionally forces men into existence only to force them into eternal Hell apart from their consent. And so it goes with every man who loved without condition to one's eternal salvation. Man, in effect, outmercifies God.

Proverbs 16:1 "The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD." As far as Paul, that's a non-issue trying to show conflict of will between Paul (under the inspiration of the Spirit) and God. It is Paul's desire that his bretheren be saved, but such a desire is superceded by his desire to glorify God. Neither does Paul, especially in the case of his countrymen.

As a side note, this is relevant to another thread regarding whether or not we should be praying for the lost to come to Christ. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

The rest of the paragraph is just reasoning out from your false premises.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Read gen 6:5 depravity of man
Gen 8:21 depravity of man

 

[Romanbear]

A bretherninchrist;
The depravity of the men before the flood.But did you notice that He saved Noah and his family because they were worthy of saving. Noah feared God.Because he choose to
In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[frumanchu]

The depravity of the men before the flood

How about after the flood....


"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" Eph 2:1,5

"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses" Col 2:13

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." Ps 51:5 (this is David...the man after God's own heart!!!)

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." Ps 58:3

"And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed." John 3:19,20

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." Rom 8:7,8

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14

"..to the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled." Titus 1:15

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one!" Job 14:4

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil." Jer 13:23

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44

"And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”" John 6:65

"As it is written:
“There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
“Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Rom 3:10-18

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

A bretherninchrist;
The depravity of the men before the flood.But did you notice that He saved Noah and his family because they were worthy of saving. Noah feared God.Because he choose to
In Christ;
Romanbear

Funny how that is argue with

Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

and if you believe that the word is God...John 1:1

and this is his word and He cannot lie... we have a problem

 

[Received]

The point of Romans 1 is not that the capacity to respond is totally in this revelation, it's to show that man is in clear and willfull rebellion. If man did not have an innate sense of the existence of his Creator, he wouldn't be in rebellion against God because he wouldn't even know He was there. The general revelation of God in nature and in the conscience ultimately serves as a witness AGAINST man as he rejects that revelation. Either way, it does not eradicate the need to send a savior. Christ's primary purpose was NOT to let the world know that "hey, there IS a God you know." but rather to actually SAVE His people. In regards to the last question, you again leave the man who doesn't hear the gospel as the victim instead of the guilty. Returning to Romans 1, the argument put forth by Paul is that ALL men are WITHOUT EXCUSE in regards to rejection of God. There is ample evidence in the general revelation of God in creation and in the conscience, and all men by default wilfully reject such revelation. Thus the man who doesn't hear the Gospel is still justifiably condemnable for his sinfulness.

I must point out that in this context -- and any context --, the will itself is not the problem; it is the will in view of the psyche of the individual. If the situation of man's rebellion is congenital, he is without blame; it is like blaming a man for his inherited cancer. Therefore, if Romans 1 reveals man's natural behavior, it is unjust to blame him. I hold that Romans 1 reveals not the natural man, but the natural man in rejection of the truth. How else can you explain how the many come to Christ? They have the capacity to receive the gospel, and are therefore not of such revolt to refuse God. Again, if this was the case, God is blaming man for something he does naturally -- and therefore unconsciously; or, God's love is pathetically weak in regards to special revelation (for if the cosmos are enough to bring man to salvation, this is indeed special revelation, and not general); I utterly reject this idea.

"For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." -- John 3:20-21

Two possible responses: either man is capable in his own power, under the special revelation of God, to come to Him (notice he 'comes' to the light; he is not already in it); or God has given him the capacity to receive unconscious to him. But there is contradiction in this response: how can blame be merited on behalf of those who cannot respond to something that God obviously has to institute? Blame is futile, and therefore unjust. This is not what scripture teaches; Paul reveals that man is to blame for his refusal to repentance in light of the truth (Romans 2:5 -- remember, this section is emphasized regarding the Jews). An ought implies a can.

As for the common response concerning man as a victim, the idea of him being a slave to sinfulness seems to seal the deal. Man is a victim. For dickens sake, he is born with a spiritual disease not essential to God's image. Paul states in Romans 7 that sin is more than the result of an immoral action; it is a driving force in natural man. Indeed, Jesus did not come to save men from some shady eschatological punishment; His name was Jesus because He should save men from their sins (Matt. 1:21). This seems quite explicitly to state that the punishment itself is the result of unrepentant unethical actions (Asaph made this plain -- Psalm 73:19); and we know from scripture that it is impossible to keep the entire law, for the law is fulfilled in love. Hell is a place for rebels, successful to the end. Even Paul, as a Pharisee, boasted in keeping every jot and tittle of the law, including the massive amount of oral laws instituted by the Pharasaic crowd during that time (Phil. 3:6). Indeed, "For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law." (Gal. 3:21). The only way eternal life is capable is through faith in Him; without such, righteousness is impossible. And without this righteousness; that is, eternal life; that is, knowing God the Father (John 17:3) -- without this, men are left to their sins, either capable of response, or, through rebellion, incapable -- in either case, he is a victim.

Again, you're painting man as the victim instead of the guilty. In such light, God is OBLIGATED to provide all men with clear and direct revelation of the Truth in order to maintain His own justice in condemning the unregenerate. He is under no such obligation, and man is anything but a victim. The 'don't blame me, I was born this way' defense does't cut it.

God is obligated to nothing. Salvation is a form of love, and love has nothing to do with desert; it is unconditional. Please respond to the post and stop resorting to slippery slope fallacies. In regards to your last sentence, this theology doesn't 'cut it' only if God is partial in His love; this is not what I hold; God is love. Man is responsible only insofar as goes the light he has received. Scripture states that man without knowledge is without blame (Proverbs 24:12), as well as the fact that Christ is not an a priori revelation of God (Romans 10:14). Damnation is imputed upon rejection of Christ; and, certainly, man without the knowledge of Christ is not automatically vindicated. Those who come to the light are those with the capacity to do so, as Jesus states (John 3:20,21). "...the way of the unfaithful is hard." (Prov. 13:15).

I disagree. I think man commits what he knows to be wrong BECAUSE his heart is impure, not that man's heart becomes impure by his knowingly sinning. For the latter to happen, man would have to desire to sin before he desired to sin

Ahhhh, but if his heart is impure, and such impurity is congenital, how can you blame him? I don't understand. As you can tell, this is the meat of my many arguments. I certainly can agree that such unrighteousness is imputed when he blatently rejects Christ -- which happens quite often. Without such he is merely (litotes) carrying the condemnation of something he is incapable of doing lacking the love (agapas) that fulfills the law, of which is from Christ. Men are sinners. Regardless, there are degrees of hardness of heart; looking about the world will reveal this perfectly. A noble-minded Theravada buddhist may not be of the same heart as a murderer, though they both are not saved, for they do not know God the Father (John 17:3).

Again, you're paying lipservice to Original Sin by saying we're not justifiably condemnable as fallen creatures. There is an abundance of Scripture supporting man's depravity from birth. You're running to the 'don't blame me...I was born this way' position.

I don't understand. You agree with me that there is an abundance of scripture supporting man's depravity, yet you still somehow believe that he is worthy of an eternal torment of fire by being forced into existence and being the person he is. I do not believe this. I believe that sin itself is the condemnation (again, to quote Matt. 1:21), and every sin committed wilfully after revelation of the truth is indeed a form of torment (Hebrews 10:26,27 reveals this in its quintessence), for it is the 'fearful expectation', and fear, John tells us, involves torment (1 John 4:18). The question comes down to the depth of the benevolence of God. How far is He willing to go to save pathetic mankind? Mankind cannot save himself; and this is precisely because even if all sins were repented of, unrighteousness would not bloom; it is a question of love, for it is love, Jesus tells us, that is the fulfillment of the law. Agapas comes only from existential revelation via a personal God; we love (agapas) because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). Only through eternal life (knowing the Father [John 17:3]) is man capable of this.

Read Psalm 51:5.

Done; so I pose the question once again:

"Is this rebellion a part of his sinful nature, or not? If it is not a part of the sin working in him, how can he rebel against the light? He would not then be a rebel. Certainly, man can work himself up into a rebel, by committing acts of evil wilfully, in revelation of what is good and bad given the specific situations. But we are speaking of the basic nature of man -- how he is when he is conceived. If this rebellious nature is something he cannot control, how can he be blamed? If this rebellious nature is indeed something he can control, why preach the gospel? Men are saved through faith; the absence of sin without faith is impossible. It is either/or."

Does this mean you support post-mortem salvation?

I have faith in the idea; that is to say, the possibility. Death is the undiscovered country, dear friend. But I do know that if God is love, and desires all men to be saved, such an idea is far from ludicrous:

Do I believe there is room for this interpretation within scripture? Yes. Christ said that the judgment of all men will take place on 'the last day' (John 12:48). The writer of Hebrews, however, states that judgment comes after death (Hebrews 9:27). Is this contradiction? Certainly not, for the latter can correspond to the former. Men are judged on the last day, which is obviously after their death. In-between this time you have potentially thousands of years of what the New Testament refers to as Hades. Of the 71 instances of this term in the bible (the Old Testament refers to it as Sheol), nowhere is it mentioned as a place of torment and despair; all except one place (Luke 16) which is in the context of a story by Jesus. Many claim that this story was indeed a true event. I do not. Nowhere do we hear of Jesus warning men of Hades, but of Gehenna, which is a representation of the lake of fire. Nowhere in the Old Testament is Sheol depicted as a place of torment; on the contrary, it is a place in which the prisoners are in a semi-conscious state of existence, if not non-existence. Also, Jesus used this story in reference to the Pharisees: the text states in earlier verses that they were lovers of money (Luke 16:14); consequently, preaching a story that involves a financially degraded man, and a rich man, the latter going to Hades -- a place the Pharisees incorrectly instituted as a place of torment --, and the former to Abraham's bosom -- of which would contradict their doctrine of riches being equivalent to eternal wealth as well --, would inevitably scandalize them. This is the point of the story. With this all in mind, with the peculiar and fascinating verse in Revelation 1:18 stating that Jesus has the keys to death and Hades, it seems quite possible -- very well probable -- that those who die in a state of ambiguity regarding their salvation are in good hands.

Note: this is for another thread if indeed continued.

 

[Received]

And again 'don't blame me, I was born this way.' The problem is that the God of love that you're promoting is not the God of the Bible. I'm not saying that God is not love...such is explicitly stated in Scripture. But your notion of what that means in terms of how God acts and thinks is flawed. If He were as you say, you will have a hard time explaining His instructions to the Jews to utterly destroy men, women and CHILDREN. We're talking about dashing babies against rocks. How would you reconcile this with what you're putting forth?

Firstly, we must look at things teleologically; and in regards to this idea, many OT references indicating a seemingly unloving God are impossible for us to comprehend. I do know that children are saved by the merit of their innocence (Isaiah 7:16). In regards to the women and men, I hold faith over epistemological apprehension. In regards to how the Israelites committed such actions, I hold to man's freedom. Either God is love and such acts had a just purpose (of which we cannot comprehend fully), or scripture contradicts itself. This I cannot admit. I will never, however, hold that God's will determines justice; justice is good in itself. I can know at the very least that the God who puts up with me and my meticulous questions through tender compassion cannot be the same who ruthlessly murders children; that is to say, kills them for the sake of killing them. Kierkegaard revealed the suspension of the ethical in regards to actions of faith towards God, and how this related to Abraham. Such may be the case here. Women being 'innocent', I would hold, is an anthropological claim; in scripture women are just as guilty as men for the sin they embellish themselves in. As for the children, God may very well acting in mercy towards them, for such sinful nature inflicted upon their minds may be impossible to shake off regardless of attempts bestowed. A broken psyche is the most difficult of all things to overcome.

If that is the case, then God is largely ineffective in persuading men to choose Him. Furthermore, you've returned it to man's abilities. If God has the power to work within time, and God is omniscient, then surely He can know what it would take to lead one to Him. You have to explain then why He doesn't bring about what He could. You're arguing for man's free will constraining God's actions, but when you reason that out it leaves God more or less impotent to do anything except sit and watch.

I do not see it this way. I believe that God may purposely delay His calling of specific persons in order for them to take advantage eternally of the blessings that came about through their prior sinful nature. I have great difficulty in admitting that every single human being that is outside of the reach of the church would be unwilling to repent if given the chance; many evangelicals ascribe to this form of Molinism as reasoning behind a neo perspective in Christian particularism. I simply believe that God has allowed us and our arrogance behind the pulpit to screw things up, if you will; such will reveal our ignorance come our day of judgment before the mercy seat of Christ, and such will lead to that much more eternal blessedness on behalf of prior wrongs committed. This is a metaphysical argument -- what is the fine line between God's sovereignty and human freedom (even though the former encompasses the latter as well, obviously); and how far is God willing to allow such imperfection to flourish? I do know that God has blamed the Jews for acting pompously in relation to the Gentiles; such action led to the Gentile's blaspheming Yahweh's name(Romans 2:24 -- note: His name is blasphemed; not His being; a very interesting revelation in my opinion). How much further could this stretch? It is not a case of God being ineffective; but of God allowing man to be ineffective.

I think that you have a wholly unbalanced view of the love of God which has Him actually foresaking and shedding His other attributes (which define Him as God).

Well, we've debating on this subject a few times in the past. I do not see love as a mere attribute of God; I see it as His essence. He is love; not one who loves. From this essence come His characteristics: righteousness, justice, etc. etc. Of course, to fully understand God's nature, just substitute Paul's treatise on love in 1 Corinthians 13 for who John says He is in 1 John 4:8. All other characteristics presented in the bible fit this description.

The opposite of sin is faith? No, the opposite of sin is obedience, which COMES from faith (read the verse again). God only accessible through Christ? Yes, in terms of approachability, but not in terms of awareness. We are aware of the existence of God apart from knowledge of Christ. Thus the rebellion is still wilfull because man knows God is. Your understanding of the will of man is completely backwards.

This is not what my bible says. "...and whatever is not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:23). Do I disagree with your claim that the opposite of sin is obedience which comes from faith? Certainly not. But this obedience, through Christ, can only come to those who are in view of Christ. Without such men are judged on the basis of light received. As Proverbs says, what cannot be known is not what one will be judged by (24:12). Paul, we know, tells us that Christ cannot be known by nature in Romans 10. And until one comes to Christ – that is to say, until Christ is preached to him --, how the dickens are we to know if he is a true rebel, and not one who would indeed grasp and hold dear the truth of the gospel if it were indeed preached to him?

Now you proceed from a false premise (that faith is the opposite of sin, not obedience). Sin is transgression of the Law (not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law), and transgression's opposite is obedience. Your false premise leads to your false conclusions. Sin is not something man is a victim of, it is something he is in slavery to. Big difference, because man submits himself to sin. Consider Rom 6:16: "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Paul goes on to say that the choice to free oneself from slavery to sin and submit as a slave to righteousness is from the heart.

Faith is the opposite of sin, as I have argued above. As for the Romans quote, how do you think one becomes a slave to righteousness? It is by Christ, and Christ alone. Without such, it is impossible for man to repent. Thus the entire idea behind slaves to sin. A slave, I would remind you, does not have power over his master; only when man is freed by Christ does he have the possibility of returning to his old master. Man is a victim; Paul states sin is a working power in his flesh in Romans 7, as I have pointed out before. Without sin, man would not be a rebel. The slavery of sin is congenital, unasked, and is certainly not chosen. It is a curse upon mankind. “But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification.” – Romans 6:22 (NRSV).

But you must concede that it allows for the possibility of God choosing the level of restraining grace imposed upon the unregenerate. God works actively to restrain evil in the world, and as such can effectively harden a person simply by withholding that restraint. God was clear in the case of Joseph and his brothers that what men mean for evil, He can mean for good.

And what God commits, God takes responsibility for. Just as with any other man. And I would also hold, from a philosophical stance, that your quote regarding Joseph is meant to reveal the capability of God allowing evil to work for good to those who love Him (Romans 8:28). God, because He loves such people (Joseph being the ideal case), allows seeming nonsense and superlative evil to happen to them, all for the ultimate edification of their character. This is a key point that philosophers today are pointing out, none perhaps better than Eleonore Stump. Evil helps us appreciate the good all the more. God, as always, works things teleologically; He allows evil for an ultimate purpose for good. I contend that He never uses a single person instrumentally (for they are in the image of God), nor does He love them any less (as He is love). Pharoah, we all know, got what he deserved: a heart to carry out his otherwise impotent schemes. He had an evil heart prior to God’s hardening of it.

No, He is forcing nobody to be evil...He is allowing to be as they choose (evil). Again their 'incapability' of repenting is the effective result of their unwillingness to do so.

See, I agree with this. Men who refuse to will the things of God, God uses for His ultimate purpose. Of course, I advocate that men are capable of responding to the gospel in their own power; thus, those who will have nothing of God (as the Pharisees), God uses, according to their freedom (Proverbs 16:9), to bring about some greater end.

As far as claiming that you would be just in adhering to God's will that you be condemned, that's rediculous. Even if cooperation with God's will were a righteous act in and of itself (which in the case of the unregenerate it is not), it still does not excuse you from the rest of your sin for which you are condemnable.

But the condemnation of sin is a result of men being who they are; indeed, if eternal life is knowing God the Father now (John 17:3), condemnation is precisely the state of sinfulness that is congenital to every man. An eternal burning Hell that men are worthy of on such a basis is ludicrous, for they do not have the power to turn to Christ if He is not preached (or preached truly) to them.

Proverbs 16:1 "The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD."

And what do you think this quote means? Either God is forcing men to emit answers in reluctance (and therefore the claim that God judges men on the basis of what they did not willfully commit is absolute nonsense), or God answers for man what he has built up for himself – even up to the very thought of answering. Notice indeed that the thought is not of the Lord, but the answer. I would actually claim that this instance of scripture is exclusive – towards those who are of God. Of course, this is just my interpretation of an otherwise ambiguous verse. I do know that coercion is evil; and to claim God commits such is silly, short of blasphemy. Fortunately, Proverbs 16:9 seems to make this interpretation plain – that God ordains according to man’s plans. This I hold as a part of perfect justice, and not unfair play.

As far as Paul, that's a non-issue trying to show conflict of will between Paul (under the inspiration of the Spirit) and God. It is Paul's desire that his bretheren be saved, but such a desire is superceded by his desire to glorify God. Neither does Paul, especially in the case of his countrymen.

I emphatically disagree with this; the very calling of Christ is to preach the gospel to the unredeemed. For this instance to be a superseding of Paul’s will in reference to God’s, scripture has been warped. To glorify God is to love one’s brother, and ultimately to save him. If God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked He either takes pleasure in the death of the righteous, or in the repentance of the wicked. The latter is obviously the case. Such is universalized. Paul is therefore out-mercifying God according to the exclusive Calvinistic response.

 

[Tawhano]

frumanchu said:
…you again leave the man who doesn't hear the gospel as the victim instead of the guilty. Returning to Romans 1, the argument put forth by Paul is that ALL men are WITHOUT EXCUSE in regards to rejection of God…

Under the doctrine of Calvinism man is the victim. Under Calvinism man indeed has an excuse. Under Calvinism man has absolutely no ability to choose or reject God until God gives him that ability. This is a catch 22 situation in that God only gives that ability to the person He has chosen and will accept Him. The person who God foresaw would not accept Him is not given that choice. This is perfectly acceptable under Calvinism because God already knew the outcome and there was no need to extend that offer.

Lets look at Romans to see if this theology is mirrored in that piece of scripture.

Romans 1:19-21
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. 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: 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.

That which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it to them. Doesn’t sound like God held it back from them who are without excuse at all. God revealed it to them and they rejected Him. This is how it was in the beginning and throughout God’s dealings with man, that he be given a choice and God would make a covenant with those who accepted His ways.

Romans 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

I don’t believe the problem lies in what ‘foreknow’ means at all. It clearly means just what it says; knew beforehand. The difficulty as I see it is the ‘whom’ that was foreknown. Prior to this verse Paul says this:

Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

If our salvation is secured beforehand then this verse makes no sense. This verse indicates that salvation is still yet to come for those who live in hope for it. If an individual’s salvation was foreknown then he need not hope for what God has already set in place. It is for this reason I believe the ‘whom’ is not an individual but a people.

Romans 9:25-26
As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

The individual lives in hope that they might find salvation by entering into the new covenant and becoming the foreknown people that God predestinated in Hosea.

 

[Romanbear]

A breathern in Christ;
In Your post you quote Paul in romans;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

If you'll notice in the verse before the one you quoted it says it is writen. It is writen by David in Psalms this is where Paul got it from.

Psa 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

If you care to notice in verse one this was first said by a fool he also says there is no God.
You see men can take God's word and make it seem to say a lot of things that aren't true. We both know there is a God and we both know that man can and does seek God.
In Christ;
Ray

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

A breathern in Christ;
In Your post you quote Paul in romans;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. ARE YOU WANTING TO ARGUE WITH GOD HERE

If you'll notice in the verse before the one you quoted it says it is writen. It is writen by David in Psalms this is where Paul got it from.

Psa 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

If you care to notice in verse one this was first said by a fool he also says there is no God.
You see men can take God's word and make it seem to say a lot of things that aren't true. We both know there is a God and we both know that man can and does seek God.
In Christ;
Ray

OTHER VERSES ROMANS 3:23,6:23,8:7-8,
jOHN 3:19-20
1COR 2:14
JER 13:23
JOHN 6:44
ISA 64:6
PS 14:1-3
PS 53:1-3
PS 58:3
GEN 6:5
GEN 8:21
JOB 15:15-16

DO WE SEE AN ACCURANCE OF VERSE GOD IS TRYING TO GET A CROSS???

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

How about after the flood....


"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" Eph 2:1,5

"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses" Col 2:13

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." Ps 51:5 (this is David...the man after God's own heart!!!)

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." Ps 58:3

"And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed." John 3:19,20

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." Rom 8:7,8

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14

"..to the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled." Titus 1:15

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one!" Job 14:4

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil." Jer 13:23

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44

"And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”" John 6:65

"As it is written:
“There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
“Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Rom 3:10-18

speak the word.....speak it again ....that right do you see this romanbear ...read it and believe

 

[Received]

A breathern in Christ;
In Your post you quote Paul in romans;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

If you'll notice in the verse before the one you quoted it says it is writen. It is writen by David in Psalms this is where Paul got it from.

Psa 14:1 To the chief Musician, A

Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, Thereis no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, thereis none that doeth good.
Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: thereis none that doeth good, no, not one.

If you care to notice in verse one this was first said by a fool he also says there is no God.
You see men can take God's word and make it seem to say a lot of things that aren't true. We both know there is a God and we both know that man can and does seek God.
In Christ;
Ray

Just a note: Paul makes a peculiar case in the 17th chapter of Acts:

"...and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'" -- 17:26-28 (NASB)

Is this a contradiction with Romans 3? I think not. While man may by no means seek God in his own power, the question seems to be one of response; lest the verses here blatently contradict the words of Paul in Romans 3. And in relation to this point, I would emphatically draw your attention to the last claim made by Paul in this passage: that heathen poets are making true claims about the God of Israel. This seems to tell me quite much. God offers universal evidence, and man, through response, reaches that much closer to the truth. We do know from scripture that man cannot know the claims of Christ -- and therefore salvation -- by the wonder of the cosmos; Paul reveals this in Romans 10:

"How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?... So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." -- 10:14,17 (NASB)

With this in mind, how can we know to judge who is honestly seeking the truth he is given -- such being relative to every person? We cannot. Romans 1 reveals man in revolt, and not the congenital state of man. If this were the case, how can you blame him for doing something essential and involuntary to his character? This is precisely the entailment of a congenital psychological state. And men cannot be blamed for what they did not consciously commit. This is common fair play.

"If you say, "See, we did not know this,"
Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
And will He not render to man according to his work?" -- Proverbs 24:12

Christ fits this formula, brothers.

"Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, "We see.' Therefore your sin remains." -- John 9:41

"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also." -- John 15:22,23

And as for the rest of the verses quoted, I would like to focus my attention on John 3:

"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." -- 3:19-21 (NASB)

Notice that he who practices the truth comes to the light; he is not already in it. That is to say, there is a state of truth that sinners can hold prior to their conversion; such actually leads them to the doors of salvation. To claim otherwise is to hold that God reveals a bit of Himself unconscious to the individual that would eventually come to salvatoin. What is wrong with this response? Only the fact that everywhere in the New Testament do we hear of universal calls to repentance; Paul's call in Romans 2:5 seems to be a very useful paradigm. But if we are calling men to repentance, and blaming them for doing something they cannot do in their own power if indeed they do reject the truth, this is not just. Blame is futile.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

[/size][/size]

Just a note: Paul makes a peculiar case in the 17th chapter of Acts:

"...and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'" -- 17:26-28 (NASB)[ why are we called children..eph 1:4, 1 cor 1:26-30]

Is this a contradiction with Romans 3? I think not. While man may by no means seek God in his own poweragreed, the question seems to be one of response; lest the verses here blatently contradict the words of Paul in Romans 3. And in relation to this point, I would emphatically draw your attention to the last claim made by Paul in this passage: that heathen poets are making true claims about the God of Israel. This seems to tell me quite much. God offers universal evidence, and man, through response, reaches that much closer to the truth. We do know from scripture that man cannot know the claims of Christ -- and therefore salvation -- by the wonder of the cosmos; Paul reveals this in Romans 10:

"How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?... So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." -- 10:14,17 (NASB)

With this in mind, how can we know to judge who is honestly seeking the truth he is given -- such being relative to every person? We cannot. Romans 1 reveals man in revolt, and not the congenital state of man. If this were the case, how can you blame him for doing something essential and involuntary to his character? This is precisely the entailment of a congenital psychological state. And men cannot be blamed for what they did not consciously commit. This is common fair play.

"If you say, "See, we did not know this,"
Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
And will He not render to man according to his work?" -- Proverbs 24:12

Christ fits this formula, brothers.

"Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, "We see.' Therefore your sin remains." -- John 9:41

"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also." -- John 15:22,23this is God talking how he sees believer in Christ but we do still sin [Gal 5:16-17 two walks]

And as for the rest of the verses quoted, I would like to focus my attention on John 3:

"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." -- 3:19-21 (NASB)

Notice that he who practices the truth comes to the light; he is not already in it. That is to say, there is a state of truth that sinners can hold prior to their conversion; such actually leads them to the doors of salvation. To claim otherwise is to hold that God reveals a bit of Himself unconscious to the individual that would eventually come to salvatoin. What is wrong with this response? Only the fact that everywhere in the New Testament do we hear of universal calls to repentance; Paul's call in Romans 2:5 seems to be a very useful paradigm. But if we are calling men to repentance, and blaming them for doing something they cannot do in their own power if indeed they do reject the truth, this is not just. Blame is futile.

What God reckon to be true IN CHRIST since he did all the work and we believe that God did all the work for are salvation...

BUT BELIEVERS sin that is why God gives us defenses to the World 1John 2:15, Satan eph 6:11-17, and the flesh romans 6:11-13

In Christ there is no condemnation for who walk after not the flesh, but after the spirit ................romans 8:1

love to hear your response

 

[Received]

There is no need; you have stated your own case in relation to another thread. I do not see how you have responded to mine. And I also do not see the need for bold faced type. Please feel free to clarify, with the understanding that I am a human being who likes to impress his abstract theological thoughts on a board of what I would like to consider at least partially free thinking brethren. If this is not the case, debate is a facade -- a covering for doctrinal arrogance.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

did you read my verses ? I responded to your thread and explained down below

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

you were talking about John 15:22-23

I brought up Gal 5:16-17 ....why does god say there are two different walks why

In hebrews 12:5-11 why is there displine described if they walk good all the time

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

What God reckon to be true IN CHRIST since he did all the work and we believe that God did all the work for are salvation...

BUT BELIEVERS sin that is why God gives us defenses to the World 1John 2:15, Satan eph 6:11-17, and the flesh romans 6:11-13

there is no condemnation for thoses in Christ ................romans 8:1

love to hear your response