Arminians and Calvinists - or Christians?

[francisdesales]

I will try to respond to this post tomorrow. Thanks...

Go back to that parallelism - Are all acts of charity, of God? Similarly, if an act of love is not of God but of the flesh, it is an abomination to Him.


If a person has a charitable disposition as in Matt 6:2, would you say that God's kindness has entered in some way?


I am stating that if their love is not of God, it is not a good work at all and hence is sinful in God's sight. How much clearer can I get? And not all acts of love are of God - the flesh is quite capable of performing acts of love for another. Why do the sinners love those that love them - because their flesh finds satisfaction in such mutual relationships. But we are to love unconditionally - as we ourselves are loved - and this is possible only when God regenerates us with a new heart to love this way, by His Spirit gifted to us.


Again, those who love others as themselves are those who love God too and these are undoubtedly of God.


Like I said, I'd like to have read your responses to post#47. I don't know what you can consider an act of love without knowing the inner disposition of man - and this I'm quite confident, none can see in another. That leaves us with what God describes of the human nature - and there I find that the flesh cannot but transgress the law of God. Whatever act of love you might refer to, if done in the flesh, is still a transgression of the law.


I don't believe pagans can be interchanged with gentiles for any purposes. If one is "spiritually circumcised", he will have to be a worshiper of the one true God, reference-names apart. But pagan, by definition, is one who does not believe in the one true God. A pagan can always be spiritually circumcised, at which point he ceases to be a pagan ie he ceases to worship all false gods. But one who is spiritually circumcised can never be a pagan ie one who does not believe in the One True God as Christians do, again reference-names apart.


Any act that involves moral choice is either good or sinful. Where is the neutral middle-ground?


When the motive is of God, by the Spirit, how can they not be pure? I'd say each of our acts worked by God in us are pure - and each of our acts worked by ourselves in the flesh are sinful.


I'm confused about what you're asking here. Are you asking whether God considers "such" giving, ie "giving with ulterior motives" as sinful - obviously yes. The only motive that cannot be sinful is a motive derived out of the root love for God - and this, by definition, is not possible in the unregenerate.

Again, to set things in perspective, my agenda is simply 1Cor 1:29.

 

[mondar]

Take your last sentence. I am not following this new line of thought - and it is a new line of thought for Calvinists. I was under the impression that men are entirely and totally evil - without God. Thus, the "T" in "Tulip". Now, they are "not as sinful as they could be"? Is there something more than "totally depraved", Mondar?

Please accept this question in a brotherly context. Forgive me if I am yet again perplexed...

Your language above is not necessarily wrong, but it is insufficient. Calvinists do not teach that men are as sinful as they could be, but Calvinists do teach that sin permeates all aspects of a persons life, the will, the emotions, the intellect, etc. The term "totally" in totally depraved is not referring to how sinful we are, but that sin permeates all parts of our being. The doctrine does mean that a mother cannot love her children, but it does mean that when a mother loves her child, it does not merit Gods grace in any way. I believe you yourself somewhere up the thread said that we love, but our love is imperfect and flawed. I would agree with that but say that the imperfect part comes from an evil heart and so therefore the action or deed is flawed by sin in some way.

I think you and ivdavid are discussing this in more detail than what I can discuss with you.

Sin has "totally" affected a person by being a part of the persons will, his intellect, his emotions, and every other part of a persons being. There is no part of an unregenerate person that is left without sin affecting the being. Again, the word "total" does not speak to the depth of depravity, but to the extent of depravity in a person.

A mother will be gentle toward her children, and at the same time hate her mother in law. She will buy her child the 9th dress because she loves her child, and let the neighbor children go naked.

No, that is not the "question", my friend. You are trying to change the question to one more easily answered by "your" theology.

The question was, "...is every act of an unregenerate an act of evil, abhorent to God?" I see this as an attempt to back-track against what is taught regarding total depravity and "works of the flesh" which are universally acts of sin (according to some).

Concerning every act being abhorent to God, well, I am aware that ivdavid used the term in post #32 when he said... "To each, his own testimony. My "human experience" witnesses to the convicting work of God in showing me how all my works before being regenerated, that I thought were "good", were actually works of my flesh - abhorring and evil in God's sight. "

I read you misunderstood that point he made. I myself do not read ivdavid as saying that when he gets up in the morning and puts on his left shoe before his right shoe that God abhors this individual "act." However, I should let ivdavid speak for himself.

I think ivdavid was talking about actions of pug self-righteousness where men think they do something to please God. Yes, all those actions are abhored by God. I did not reread the thread, and I should, but I suspect you are repeating something here. I notice you ask if "every act" of the unregenerate man is abhorrent. The answer to that would be no.

As I mentioned before, Jesus and Paul both state otherwise. They disagree that EVERY act of the unregenerate (pre or un Baptised) is abhorent to God. Jesus notes that even the pagans can love. Now, IF God is love, where does this "pagan love" come from - and how could it be abhorent to God? Because it is not perfect love???

Now your talking turkey (wooot). Lets look at the text, what text are you talking about? Lets get into the scriptures.

Again, there seems to be no reason to even mention that here - thus, I cannot help but wonder if that is what you "really" meant. It seems clear to me, based on this thread, that some believe that the unregenerate act, each and every one of them, is sin, an abomination to God. I am not sure where the "unregenerate cannot have faith" comes from, that could be equally argued that there is some modicum of faith injected into the unregenerate - otherwise, there would be no "seeking of God" prior to being regenerate. But that is not our issue here.

I must admit that I am not sure why you keep talking like you do in this paragraph. I have seen you do this several times in this thread, and I am not grasping why you continually connect unregenerate "acts" and unregenerate faith.

I think you are saying that when a mother loves her children this is the unregenerate "seeking God?" I think your seeing this as a kind of pre-faith faith? These pre-faith pre-regeneration deeds somehow gain merit and please God?

If that is what you are saying, I again wonder how this is different from Pelagius (not meant to be insulting in any way) Any man can do good at any time? But lets go to the scriptures.

Your definition of "in the flesh" seems to mean "any unregenerate man", vs. Paul's idea of a man who follows his own selfish mind as the principle of guiding his actions. The seeking of God is NOT an "act of the flesh", Mondar. Nor is a pagan man who loves his wife and children an "act of the flesh".

This involves Romans 8.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Yes, according to this verse, I would see that in the context of Romans 8, the person "in the flesh" is the same as the unregenerate.

The pagan man who loves his wife and children, that emotion can only be in the flesh. But again, remember, not every act is as sinful as it could be. The individual action of the pagan is putting on his right shoe before his left, that might not be abhorrent. But if the pagan thinks he is honoring the gods by his choice, his idolatry is certainly abhorrent.

If you admit as much, then there is indeed room to consider that the unregenerate's acts are not ALL "of the flesh"...

OK

At some point, before we are regenerated, God acts within us to draw us to Him. There is some act of faith, a response to God - and this certainly cannot be considered "abhorent" to God, since that is the PURPOSE of God stirring within us the desire to seek Him out.

Where does the scriptures teach us that God draws us through our own deeds?

Concerning the subject of drawing, I would point to this well used text.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
The drawing of God is not because of human actions but in spite of them. The text begins with the total incapability of man ----> "No man can come to me"
The drawing is all the action of God.-----> "except the Father that sent me draw him." No action of man here.

Then the final clause means that the person always goes to heaven----> "And I will raise him up on the last day."
The personal pronouns are the same person... the "him" drawn is the "him" raised up. 6:40 tells us the one raised up is raised up to eternal life.

I see the scriptures speaking of the incapability of man, but nowhere the ability of man to seek God.

I should also comment on Romans 3:11, but its time for bed.

 

[childeye]

=francisdesales;578139]


The true reformer realizes this, building up the Body through reform, rather than cutting itself off from the Body to attempt to perfect the Church by their own will and ability. True reform happens within the Church.

I don't see how the church as you hold to in definition, is reformed from the inside when the places of power in need of reform would naturally repel any such attempts.

Ah, another person who does not believe that Jesus is God.

Say what?

Isn't that your stance

Absolutely No.

- you do not believe His promise to ensure that the Church would remain for all time, visible to all?

No I don't recall Jesus saying that in those words. I know the church as in His body as in those in whose hearts he rules will endure in some form.

The Church remains because of the Spirit of God. Disbelief of that is disbelief of the promise. Is that not true?

Yes I just said that.

What I am seeing here is the overlooking of MAJOR problems within the Church of Acts. Too many people have an idealized and utopian view of that first Church, but clearly, there was dissent, schism, back-biting, and many other issues common among humans. A mere 20 years after the resurrection, the Church was in DIRE need of a Council to decide a major issue - and this issue was not entirely resolved among all believers of Jesus Christ. Paul continues to address the Judaizers years later. John, Peter and Jude deal with their own heretics and false teachers. Revelation points out some serious issues in several local churches in the Catholic community. Yours is quite a selective reading of Acts and the rest of the NT, if you think the Church was "perfect" and then "blew away" and can no longer be found

I know about the problems in what you define as the Church. I wasn't there and neither were you, but I do believe the scriptures when they say they were all in one accord. Did they blow away? I suspect some carnal wind may have caused division if thst's what you mean. Can they be found? As I said I see elements of Christ not just in the RCC either.

shortly afterwards. It begs the question - "at what point did the Spirit of God LEAVE the Church"?

Well to answer directly, as soon as Jesus removed the candle. But personally, I don't think there is a Church without the Spirit of Christ and I do believe there is a church.

Can you point to me ANY instance where Jesus condemned the work conducted by the Jews for building the VERY extravagant Temple???

Jesus didn't condemn anyone that I remember and neither do I. But he did point out the temple is made of people and he is the chief cornerstone. God said men could not build a house for God. So I don't think a building is a church no matter how extravagant. By the way, I know many Catholic charities that would take you to task for that remark and they work with the dire poor.

Did Jesus tell the Pharisees to tear down the Temple and give the proceeds to the poor???

Hmmm, not that I remember, but he did say woe to the rich and if you seek perfection sell all you have and give it to the poor. He also did say some things about the Pharisees dressed in garments that raised attention to them and how God's house should noy be a den of thieves. Hey, now wait a minute. Are you saying the RCC is the same example as the pharisees of the temple?

There is an obvious connection between the worship in the Temple and the worship at the Tabernacles of Catholic altars.

You're starting to scare me Joe.

Yet another human misunderstanding of a more sublime and complex issue.

Boy I hope so.

Are you saying that the Pope is not a "doer"? WOW!!! :biglol

You're scaring me again, with this little guy laughing some evil laugh.
Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, what does he do?

Yes, I have heard this claim from virtually every former Catholic. "I studied the doctrine and found it un-Scriptural".

I don't recall saying that. What I said was I was ignorant of the writings of some Popes and not others. I also know that some Popes disagreed with others. The evidence shows that the early writings were often dealing with schisms and progressively grow defensive in posture.

Sorry if I am not buying that, because invariably, when we discuss a Catholic topic, they do NOT understand the Catholic position!

Well that's true. I really don't understand the Catholic position. I've heard so many Catholic positions they negate others. Not unlike protestant denominations.

One must wonder how "extensive" that research actually was, or what the motive of such "research" was...

Well, as to the extensiveness, that is relative. There are early church writings such as Augustine, Origen, Hippolytus,Iraneaus, Jerome, Justin Martyr,Ignatius. Eusebius of Ceasarea, then some Thomas moore and thomas Aquinas, mystics here and there, books by different Catholic writers such as bishop Sheen and others who I don't even remember their names. My motives as you should be able to tell was to try and understand what happened to the Church. I've studied the earlier councils starting with Nicea and the various changes that happened. I studied the first considered heresies, the gnostics, The guy who supposedly said Jesus was just a man, the first schism and some eastern orthodox writings. There are more. When I studied the inquisitions I looked at writers from both sides. I saw people who just believed what they were told and acted in God's name without question. When I got to the reformation, I read one book by Luther and that is all I know of protestantism. Was I skeptical? You bet I was. I would not take sides in what I view as carnal conflicts based on semantics.

In other words, research to find fault and justify one's current position or research done with an open mind to discover what is taught and why... Seems like many former Catholics are "experts" on the faults of the Church but can hardily explain the most fundamental elements of church, the sacraments, the papacy, Eucharist, veneration of saints, or the role of Mary in the Church...

I know what you mean by researching to find fault and justify a current position. Unfortunately, my position being to love one another as you would want to be loved kind of found the faults all by itself. As for the sacraments, the papacy, Eucharist, veneration of saints, or the role of Mary in the Church... Those don't mean anything if one is not loving his neighbor. I know many Catholics who are all about these things and yet don't know how to turn the other cheek and see no cause to love their enemy.

Case in point - Despite all of this "extensive research", you didn't know such a basic teaching of Catholicism, such a thing as "baptism by desire", stated over and over since Vatican 2 in numerous documents, notated in the Catechism, and mentioned by the current Pope

Yes I didn't know about this baptism by desire as I was baptised as a baby. Is this a New baptism?

(since you stated that I "couldn't have learned this from the Pope, that must mean the current Pope)? Hmm. What ELSE will we find out that you didn't know?

Maybe I know too much already and knowledge puffeth up. If that's the case I welcome a rebuke. You were speaking about God moving people and the knowledge of God is to know God personally. So that no man would say to his brother know the Lord. It seems to me the Catholics have never taught that. Perhaps they've changed. Since early chatecism I was taught that the Pope was The Final Say as to what to believe as a Catholic.

Larry, it seems to me that you have the "usual" disconnect of former Catholics who hate what they misunderstand. I am saddened by your rush to judge the source of what I am teaching, when you admit that you don't really know what the Pope actually teaches.

I don't know what many people teach Joe. I just know what God teaches. I was saying you were being taught by God not the Pope. Now am I right or not.

Wouldn't it had been more prudent and brotherly to just state "Joe, that is profound", rather than add in that "you certainly couldn't have learned that in the Catholic Church" nonsense...

As usual your paraphrasing reads more into something than was there to begin with. But here you have the upper hand for I am not of any desire to save face and your point is on target even if you drive it deeper than need be. Still in forthrightness, it's not nonsense to say to a brother, God taught you not another man. Perhaps it would've been more prudent to not mention the Pope as that man if I didn't want to get into this business about the Papacy. But it happened and maybe there is a reason yet unseen. In conclusion I will admit I must have some baggage about the RCC. I will think about that I promise you, and myself. May God continue to keep you for He is able. Peace.

 

[francisdesales]

But here you have the upper hand for I am not of any desire to save face and your point is on target even if you drive it deeper than need be. Still in forthrightness, it's not nonsense to say to a brother, God taught you not another man. Perhaps it would've been more prudent to not mention the Pope as that man if I didn't want to get into this business about the Papacy. But it happened and maybe there is a reason yet unseen. In conclusion I will admit I must have some baggage about the RCC. I will think about that I promise you, and myself. May God continue to keep you for He is able. Peace.

I apologize for not responding to the rest of your post, it is heading in the direction of breaking the spirit of the ToS. I don't think continuous follow-ups on Catholicism are in the keeping of the spirit of that rule. You may PM me if you wish to continue there and I will try to respond, but I am busy sometimes.

I am sorry for whatever reason you continue to feel wounded by the Catholic Church, I pray that you find forgiveness in your heart and be released from that spiritual baggage.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Your language above is not necessarily wrong, but it is insufficient. Calvinists do not teach that men are as sinful as they could be, but Calvinists do teach that sin permeates all aspects of a persons life, the will, the emotions, the intellect, etc. The term "totally" in totally depraved is not referring to how sinful we are, but that sin permeates all parts of our being.

Very well. I stand corrected on what Calvinists teach. After some reading, I have found that you are correctly describing the term "total depravity" as per Calvinism. Unfortunately, the term is badly misleading, and perhaps R.C. Sproul's alternative "radical corruption" may be better, but not by much. Loraine Boettner suggests "total inability", and if I understand it correctly, it is very similar to what Catholics believe and better describes what you believe, as well:

Our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve Him in charity. We might choose to serve Him out of fear or some other motive, but not supernatural love (charity).

This has been expressed by Catholic teaching since before the days of the Second Council of Orange. I know you are familiar with the teachings of that Council. God's grace is ABSOLUTELY necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin and to display supernatural virtues and to please God.

I think you and ivdavid are discussing this in more detail than what I can discuss with you.

Sin has "totally" affected a person by being a part of the persons will, his intellect, his emotions, and every other part of a persons being. There is no part of an unregenerate person that is left without sin affecting the being. Again, the word "total" does not speak to the depth of depravity, but to the extent of depravity in a person.

Very well. Thank you for the clarification.

Concerning every act being abhorent to God, well, I am aware that ivdavid used the term in post #32 when he said... "To each, his own testimony. My "human experience" witnesses to the convicting work of God in showing me how all my works before being regenerated, that I thought were "good", were actually works of my flesh - abhorring and evil in God's sight. "

I read you misunderstood that point he made. I myself do not read ivdavid as saying that when he gets up in the morning and puts on his left shoe before his right shoe that God abhors this individual "act." However, I should let ivdavid speak for himself.

Fair enough. I think he is going too far, and thus, my initial comments about "black and white". I think this is a result of over-intellectualizing our faith - mystery must remain on numerous issues, if we are to remain true to the Biblical and Traditional witness of the Church. In this case, lumping every human act into either "evil" or "good" categories.

Now your talking turkey (wooot). Lets look at the text, what text are you talking about? Lets get into the scriptures.

Romans 2 has already been discussed ad nauseum... It is clear enough Who is doing the writing of the Law on the heart of a pagan - being that this person does not have the Law, he must be a pagan... We can ascertain from other Scriptural passages that it is This Author of the Law on the heart that enables the occasional pagan to perform worthy deeds that could be pleasing to God, directed by "pre-faith", if you will (your term). At the end of the day, such a person has entered the Kingdom, along with other prostitutes and tax collectors...

I must admit that I am not sure why you keep talking like you do in this paragraph. I have seen you do this several times in this thread, and I am not grasping why you continually connect unregenerate "acts" and unregenerate faith.

I think you are saying that when a mother loves her children this is the unregenerate "seeking God?" I think your seeing this as a kind of pre-faith faith? These pre-faith pre-regeneration deeds somehow gain merit and please God?

The Council of Trent speaks of this:

The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified.

The Council uses a number of Scriptural passages, such as Zach 1:3 - Turn ye to me and I will turn to you: or Lament 5:21 - Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted.

The first passage stresses the freedom of movement of our will towards God (something which is in of itself grace!) and the second passage emphasizes the necessity of the prevenient grace of God. I take it you don't need me to cite other Scriptures that speak of the NEED to repent and convert, which leads one to believe that one HAS that ability to do so (with God's grace).

It would be difficult to deny that Christianity has always seen God's hand working among the pagans - since even the OT speaks of the conversion of nations to God. The very existence of pagan religions speaks of the desire of man to seek out the Divine. This indeed is seeking out God, and something that Paul commends when he visits Athens. What our role is among such people is to correct their ideas and guide them to the True God in where happiness is found.

If that is what you are saying, I again wonder how this is different from Pelagius (not meant to be insulting in any way) Any man can do good at any time? But lets go to the scriptures.

You know that Pelagius taught that we can be pleasing to God WITHOUT GOD'S GRACE. Now, if you can find ONE passage of mine that insinutaes that, please bring it forward so that I may condemn it. What boggles my mind is the reformer's inability to understand that "faith and works" does NOT mean that we can do ANYTHING without God! I have preached synergy here and am constantly referring to Phil 2:12-13. My signature line is pretty clear. And yet, I am constantly beaten around with this great big red herring...

I take it that in our numerous conversations, you have learned that I do not believe that we can merit or do anything good without God's grace, whether before or after regeneration/baptism.

This involves Romans 8.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Yes, according to this verse, I would see that in the context of Romans 8, the person "in the flesh" is the same as the unregenerate.

That is because the unregenerate GENERALLY are acting in the flesh. However, the two are not completely synonymous. At the beginning of this post, you admit that the unregenerate are not as sinful as they could be. You state that love does exist among the unregenerate at times. Thus, every act of theirs is not "in the flesh". Properly defined, "in the flesh" refers to what is moving us to act, our guiding principle. Is it me or is it the Holy Spirit.

The passage that you cite does not divide up men by "unregenerate" and "regenerate". It divides them up by who has the Spirit of God working in them at the moment. Scriptures tell us that those who do not obey God - to include the regenerate - do not have the Spirit of God within them (Acts 5). Those Christians who insisted on living in sin were not going to inherit the Kingdom. Those who did not do the will of the Father, Jesus "never knew them"... On the other hand, Scriptures note that he who loves is of God (1 John).

Now, if we let Scriptures interpret Scriptures, we can conclude that God is not bound to act only within Christians, for their acts of love PROVE that God's Spirit is working in them, even before regeneration (to draw them to Him) - and that at times, Christians choose not to obey God and follow after the flesh and that has become their guiding principle.

The pagan man who loves his wife and children, that emotion can only be in the flesh.

I disagree. There are numerous expressions of self-sacrifice, in the image of Jesus Christ dying on the cross, among non-Christians. You are limiting the work of God, my friend. Does this earn them anything? No, neither does our self-sacrifices. We will let God judge.

Where does the scriptures teach us that God draws us through our own deeds?

Again, see above on "our deeds" in conjunction with God's Spirit moving within us.

Concerning the subject of drawing, I would point to this well used text.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
The drawing of God is not because of human actions but in spite of them.

My point is that you are drawing a false dichotomy between man's work and God's work. At times, God draws men to Him, moving within him the will and desire to do good - and man responds. Yes, God draws us in spite of our unregenerate wills. God takes the initiative. I am not saying that man comes ALONE to God. Clearly, the very ACT of conversion DEPENDS upon God coming to man BEFORE regeneration. Thus, it is clear that God can and does work in the unregenerate at some level that may inspire acts of love, repentance or conversion.

I see the scriptures speaking of the incapability of man, but nowhere the ability of man to seek God.

That's because you didn't read the source of Paul's statements, the Psalms. If I had more time, I would cite you some, but I am sure that a man of your ability could find them on his own, if he was open to searching God's Word.

And to again remind you, I am not Pelagian, I am not saying that man seeks God without God's grace...

Regards

 

[mondar]

Very well. I stand corrected on what Calvinists teach. After some reading, I have found that you are correctly describing the term "total depravity" as per Calvinism. Unfortunately, the term is badly misleading,

Thank you, unfortunately, I am stuck with the terms history has passed down. There is nothing I know to do to change the terminology. In any case, my hat is off to you. I do not see Arminian protestants checking sources as you did.

This has been expressed by Catholic teaching since before the days of the Second Council of Orange. I know you are familiar with the teachings of that Council. God's grace is ABSOLUTELY necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin and to display supernatural virtues and to please God.

OK. Not that we look at things in an identical way. Roman Catholics look at prevenient grace just as you stated... "necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin..." Of course the difference is that the Reformed look at prevenient Grace as as "sufficient" to bring about faith, not just "necessary." (This is not an argument, just a statement that there is a difference in the way we look at prevenient grace).

Romans 2 has already been discussed ad nauseum... It is clear enough Who is doing the writing of the Law on the heart of a pagan - being that this person does not have the Law, he must be a pagan... We can ascertain from other Scriptural passages that it is This Author of the Law on the heart that enables the occasional pagan to perform worthy deeds that could be pleasing to God, directed by "pre-faith", if you will (your term). At the end of the day, such a person has entered the Kingdom, along with other prostitutes and tax collectors...

The Council of Trent speaks of this:

The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified.

The Council uses a number of Scriptural passages, such as Zach 1:3 - Turn ye to me and I will turn to you: or Lament 5:21 - Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted.

The first passage stresses the freedom of movement of our will towards God (something which is in of itself grace!) and the second passage emphasizes the necessity of the prevenient grace of God. I take it you don't need me to cite other Scriptures that speak of the NEED to repent and convert, which leads one to believe that one HAS that ability to do so (with God's grace).

It would be difficult to deny that Christianity has always seen God's hand working among the pagans - since even the OT speaks of the conversion of nations to God. The very existence of pagan religions speaks of the desire of man to seek out the Divine. This indeed is seeking out God, and something that Paul commends when he visits Athens. What our role is among such people is to correct their ideas and guide them to the True God in where happiness is found.

The right thing for me to do is once again address the issues of monergism, synergism, and Romans 2, and also the new texts you mention in Zech 1:3 and Lamentations 5:21. Maybe some other time. I am going to be lazy.

You know that Pelagius taught that we can be pleasing to God WITHOUT GOD'S GRACE. Now, if you can find ONE passage of mine that insinutaes that, please bring it forward so that I may condemn it. What boggles my mind is the reformer's inability to understand that "faith and works" does NOT mean that we can do ANYTHING without God! I have preached synergy here and am constantly referring to Phil 2:12-13. My signature line is pretty clear. And yet, I am constantly beaten around with this great big red herring...

I take it that in our numerous conversations, you have learned that I do not believe that we can merit or do anything good without God's grace, whether before or after regeneration/baptism.

Yes, I am aware that not only your statements, but official Roman Catholic dogma speaks of the necessity of grace. And yes, Pelagius actually taught (even though original sources do not exist) that there is no prevenient grace, and no necessity of Grace for men to do please God, such as have faith.

I also am aware of the close relationship of Roman Catholic teaching to protestant classical Arminianism.
On the other hand, are you aware that many so called protestants are not really Arminian? I know this is not your concern, but some protestants are closer to Pelagianism? Some of these semi-pelagians take the tag "Arminian" some do not. If you pay close attention to the statements of protestants who are kind of in the "angry fundamentalist" camp, the Jack Chick style people, you will notice that they do not speak of prevenient grace. Its an easy mistake for not only me, but others in the Reformed camp to clump all non-reformed people together. It would not be a red herring, but it is still en error in logic, kind of like guilt by association.

That is because the unregenerate GENERALLY are acting in the flesh. However, the two are not completely synonymous. At the beginning of this post, you admit that the unregenerate are not as sinful as they could be. You state that love does exist among the unregenerate at times. Thus, every act of theirs is not "in the flesh". Properly defined, "in the flesh" refers to what is moving us to act, our guiding principle. Is it me or is it the Holy Spirit.

The passage that you cite does not divide up men by "unregenerate" and "regenerate". It divides them up by who has the Spirit of God working in them at the moment. Scriptures tell us that those who do not obey God - to include the regenerate - do not have the Spirit of God within them (Acts 5). Those Christians who insisted on living in sin were not going to inherit the Kingdom. Those who did not do the will of the Father, Jesus "never knew them"... On the other hand, Scriptures note that he who loves is of God (1 John).

Now, if we let Scriptures interpret Scriptures, we can conclude that God is not bound to act only within Christians, for their acts of love PROVE that God's Spirit is working in them, even before regeneration (to draw them to Him) - and that at times, Christians choose not to obey God and follow after the flesh and that has become their guiding principle.



I disagree. There are numerous expressions of self-sacrifice, in the image of Jesus Christ dying on the cross, among non-Christians. You are limiting the work of God, my friend. Does this earn them anything? No, neither does our self-sacrifices. We will let God judge.



Again, see above on "our deeds" in conjunction with God's Spirit moving within us.



My point is that you are drawing a false dichotomy between man's work and God's work. At times, God draws men to Him, moving within him the will and desire to do good - and man responds. Yes, God draws us in spite of our unregenerate wills. God takes the initiative. I am not saying that man comes ALONE to God. Clearly, the very ACT of conversion DEPENDS upon God coming to man BEFORE regeneration. Thus, it is clear that God can and does work in the unregenerate at some level that may inspire acts of love, repentance or conversion.



That's because you didn't read the source of Paul's statements, the Psalms. If I had more time, I would cite you some, but I am sure that a man of your ability could find them on his own, if he was open to searching God's Word.

And to again remind you, I am not Pelagian, I am not saying that man seeks God without God's grace...

Regards

Francis, hopefully there is nothing I have said that you need to respond to. I want some more time to read what you wrote in the part above more closely. I will try to take time later and respond.

 

[francisdesales]

Thank you, unfortunately, I am stuck with the terms history has passed down. There is nothing I know to do to change the terminology. In any case, my hat is off to you. I do not see Arminian protestants checking sources as you did.

Hey, I figured I owed you that before I jumped on "do you know what 'total' means, Mondar" and perpeutate the misunderstanding...

I realize you think you are stuck with the term. I suppose you'll have to continue explaining things, just like I have to...

OK. Not that we look at things in an identical way. Roman Catholics look at prevenient grace just as you stated... "necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin..." Of course the difference is that the Reformed look at prevenient Grace as as "sufficient" to bring about faith, not just "necessary." (This is not an argument, just a statement that there is a difference in the way we look at prevenient grace).

I suppose the difference is whether one believes that God provides grace to everyone at "sufficient" levels or whether God provides only some with "sufficient" levels of grace. Maybe a "sufficient" v "efficient" argument.

Our "necessary" would indicate that no one is saved without grace. I presume you would agree with that - no other name by Whom we can be saved...

The right thing for me to do is once again address the issues of monergism, synergism, and Romans 2, and also the new texts you mention in Zech 1:3 and Lamentations 5:21. Maybe some other time. I am going to be lazy.

I don't think either "side" or a "third" side, if you will, is ever going to stack up enough Scriptural verses to overturn other Scriptural verses that seem to say something else. Perhaps you say it is "lazy", I am going to say that it is a mystery and we will not be able to ascertain the depths of God's mind on this matter...

Yes, I am aware that not only your statements, but official Roman Catholic dogma speaks of the necessity of grace. And yes, Pelagius actually taught (even though original sources do not exist) that there is no prevenient grace, and no necessity of Grace for men to do please God, such as have faith.

I also am aware of the close relationship of Roman Catholic teaching to protestant classical Arminianism.

In reality, we disagree with elements of both Arminianism and Calvinism, just to be fair. I suppose you could say we fall between the spectrum, if Calvinism and Arminianism were opposites... (of course, they are not.)

We do believe in predestination, election, original sin, and the inability of man, unaided by grace, to do anything meritorious.

On the other hand, are you aware that many so called protestants are not really Arminian? I know this is not your concern, but some protestants are closer to Pelagianism? Some of these semi-pelagians take the tag "Arminian" some do not. If you pay close attention to the statements of protestants who are kind of in the "angry fundamentalist" camp, the Jack Chick style people, you will notice that they do not speak of prevenient grace. Its an easy mistake for not only me, but others in the Reformed camp to clump all non-reformed people together. It would not be a red herring, but it is still en error in logic, kind of like guilt by association.

Yes, I am aware that there are a number of non-Catholics who have a variety of views on this subject, and that they don't fall neatly into two camps. This has always been a problem for the Catholic who discusses any religious issue with another non-Catholic Christian; "what does this guy believe"? In many cases, I have to figure it out as I go, since they don't belong to a formal tradition, such as yourself, who generally makes it known and has made it known what they believe on a number of issues, either with a catechism or a series of Confessions.

It is helpful, though, that people do explain their beliefs, such as you are.

Francis, hopefully there is nothing I have said that you need to respond to. I want some more time to read what you wrote in the part above more closely. I will try to take time later and respond.

I am not really bringing up new subjects with this post. Just clarifying a few.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Francis,
I wanted to comment on what you wrote below and did not take the time previously. You wrote.....

"Francis said:
____________________________________________________
That is because the unregenerate GENERALLY are acting in the flesh. However, the two are not completely synonymous. At the beginning of this post, you admit that the unregenerate are not as sinful as they could be. You state that love does exist among the unregenerate at times. Thus, every act of theirs is not "in the flesh". Properly defined, "in the flesh" refers to what is moving us to act, our guiding principle. Is it me or is it the Holy Spirit.

The passage that you cite does not divide up men by "unregenerate" and "regenerate". It divides them up by who has the Spirit of God working in them at the moment."
_________________________________________________________________

The passage I spoke of was Romans 8:8. I did not quote verse 9, the very next verse. If we include verse 9 in the context....
8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
In verse 9, the first clause sets up a contrast. It says.... "ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit." The person in the flesh here cannot be one of Christs because the second clause says.... " if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." So then, the unregenerate do not generally act in the flesh, but that is where they live. The unregenerate are not Christs, and so they cannot live by the Spirit.

Other texts in the NT also cooberate what I am saying. 1 Cor 2 says....
14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
The natural man is the man in the flesh. He is the unregenerate man. This text says the natural man cannot "receive" and "cannot know" the things of the Spirit of God. Now we could go off on a dog trail here and talk about the clause "cannot know." That would not be the point. The point is that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit. This cooberates with Romans 8:8-9 where the man in the flesh is not Christs, and therefore, is actions can never have their source in the Spirit, or in Christ. The only conclusion to draw is that the man in the flesh can actually love his wife and children. A mother in the flesh can tenderly care for her infant. When I previously agreed that men in the flesh are not as sinful as they could be, I was not suggesting that there are rare times that they can act spiritually, and do good things that please God. I was simply stating that men are not as "totally" evil as they could possibly be. No, some are more evil then others. Others are not quite as bad as some. Also, even though the mother loves her children, she hates her mother in law. You yourself admitted that the person in the flesh loves, even if that love is flawed and imperfect. This flawed and imperfect love does not please God, and the person in the flesh remains in depravity or in the flesh.

What I am trying to get at, is that the unregenerate do not merely "GENERALLY" act in the flesh, they totally live in the flesh. They never act in the Spirit. How could such things be?


Francis said:
_______________________________________________________
"Scriptures tell us that those who do not obey God - to include the regenerate - do not have the Spirit of God within them (Acts 5)."
________________________________________________________
I am not absolutely sure what you are referring to in Acts 5. I suspect it is this verse....
"3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? "
First, I am not sure that Annanias and his wife were regenerate. Maybe they were, I am not sure. I am open to any exegesis you (or anyone else) might provide. However, even if they were regenerate, the answer would be yes, the unregenerate sin, they fail, frequently they do not obey God. That is an obvious give in.

To really answer this issue would take a long discussion on the nature of regeneration. I can only briefly summarize the issue. I think you confuse regeneration and final sanctification here. After the resurrection, in our final sanctification we cannot sin. Our nature will be perfected so that we no longer sin. The difference between our present nature and the regeneration is that after regeneration, the new nature still contains a sin nature. However, that sin nature is not the Lord of the regenerated new man. That is a long discussion from Romans 6. In Romans 6:17-17 we read....
"17 But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered;
18 and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness. "
Notice in verse 18 that we are made "free from sin." This is what regeneration is really all about. But let me define this "freedom" with an illustration.
----Before the civil war, the black man was in slavery. After Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, they were free! But was the old master dead? No! Many former slave owners still owned their own plantations. Where did some of the black men then get their employment? They went back to the old master as share croppers.
---- Just the same, the regenerate person is now "Free" of his sin nature. This does not mean the sin nature is dead, but the regenerate person is now free to leave the plantation of his sin nature and serve his new master, God and righteousness. The problem is that so man return to the former comfort of the old master.

With regard to Anninas and his wife, can Satan fill the heart of a regenerate person to go deep into sin? I do not see why that cannot happen. The old master is alive. Satan no longer has the ability to force Annanias to serve sin, but yes, he filled the heart of Annanias with that desire to get his own glory in a false manner.

One more thing, you have switched the propositions. Your original proposition was that the unregenerate "GENERALLY" act in the flesh. You are proving this proposition using a text saying that the unregenerate acted in the flesh in the case of Annanias. This is a give in from my perspective because I am saying that the unregenerate always act in the flesh. Even if Annanias was regenerate, I would agree that even the regenerate can act in the flesh. My proposition is that the unregenerate cannot act in the Spirit. So the issue of Annanias is actually non-sequitur.



Francis said:
_________________________________________________________________
Those Christians who insisted on living in sin were not going to inherit the Kingdom. Those who did not do the will of the Father, Jesus "never knew them"... On the other hand, Scriptures note that he who loves is of God (1 John).
__________________________________________________________
I suspect that you are referring to 1 John 2
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.

The clear suggestion is here that the person who left, was never "of us." Their leaving the Church only demonstrated (or made manifest) that there were "not of us."

Of course, this is again non-sequitur. If the proposition we are discussing concerns the acts of the unregenerate (are they "GENERALLY" in the flesh, or always acting according to the flesh). Then the antiChrists of John 2 were definately acting according to the flesh. How would this prove that the Unregenerate can act according to the Spirit? Again, I would totally agree that these unregenerate "antiChrists" were acting according to the flesh. Also, even if they were regenerate, I would agree that they were acting according to the flesh, but I do not agree that they were regenerate. The regenerate would not be called Anti-Christs. Hopefully that is axiomatic.



Francis said:
____________________________________________________________________
Now, if we let Scriptures interpret Scriptures, we can conclude that God is not bound to act only within Christians, for their acts of love PROVE that God's Spirit is working in them, even before regeneration (to draw them to Him) - and that at times, Christians choose not to obey God and follow after the flesh and that has become their guiding principle.
_________________________________________________________________________
Your conclusion here is being offered upon incorrect exegesis from the text. You have demonstrated from the NT that the unregenerate sin. Possibly even that the regenerate sin. You would need to demonstrate that the unregenerate do works that are pleasing unto God.


Francis said:
_______________________________________________________________
My point is that you are drawing a false dichotomy between man's work and God's work. At times, God draws men to Him, moving within him the will and desire to do good - and man responds. Yes, God draws us in spite of our unregenerate wills. God takes the initiative. I am not saying that man comes ALONE to God. Clearly, the very ACT of conversion DEPENDS upon God coming to man BEFORE regeneration. Thus, it is clear that God can and does work in the unregenerate at some level that may inspire acts of love, repentance or conversion.
________________________________________________________________

Am I drawing a false dichotomy? I guess that is what we are discussing. We agree that God draws men to Christ, but we are disagreeing on exactly how that happens.

At this point, there are some very fine lines that are difficult to express. In Roman Catholic Theology, prevenient grace precedes faith in time due to baptismal regeneration. In Reformed Theology, regeneration does not precede faith in time, but only in logical sequence. While the concepts might be subtle, they are different. Regeneration, when combined with the preaching of the Gospel, results in faith, and all this happens in the same instant of time in Reformed Theology. I am more to the Reformed Baptist side of things, but even my Presbyterian brothers in Christ would not say regeneration occurs at Baptism. Therein is the important difference we are discussing.

So then, I would agree with prevenient grace, that God works in the unregenerate heart and regenerates it, but then the person in the same instant believes the gospel. A good text to demonstrate this would be 1 John 5:1. Maybe some other time we can talk about that. Or maybe one of the other Reformed people in this thread will pick things up here. I have written enough for now.

Later,
Mondar

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,
I wanted to comment on what you wrote below and did not take the time previously. You wrote.....

"Francis said:
____________________________________________________
That is because the unregenerate GENERALLY are acting in the flesh. However, the two are not completely synonymous. At the beginning of this post, you admit that the unregenerate are not as sinful as they could be. You state that love does exist among the unregenerate at times. Thus, every act of theirs is not "in the flesh". Properly defined, "in the flesh" refers to what is moving us to act, our guiding principle. Is it me or is it the Holy Spirit.

The passage that you cite does not divide up men by "unregenerate" and "regenerate". It divides them up by who has the Spirit of God working in them at the moment."
_________________________________________________________________

The passage I spoke of was Romans 8:8. I did not quote verse 9, the very next verse. If we include verse 9 in the context....
8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
In verse 9, the first clause sets up a contrast. It says.... "ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit." The person in the flesh here cannot be one of Christs because the second clause says.... " if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." So then, the unregenerate do not generally act in the flesh, but that is where they live. The unregenerate are not Christs, and so they cannot live by the Spirit.

I fail to see how this proves your point. A person who once proclaims that "I am in Christ" doesn't make it so every second of their life. Thus, my referral to Matthew 7:21. If so, Paul is preaching to the choir, he is wasting his breath! Throughout Scriptures, we find such exhortations - and they are indeed a reminder of their calling and to LIVE it out. It is only when one loves, forgives, has mercy on others, etc, that is when a person is living in the spirit. The operative word is LIVING.

When one is sinning, living in dissent, turning from God (while part of the Church) is living in the flesh. The operative word, again, is LIVING. One's current course in life manifests whether they are "in the flesh" or "in the spirit". That is not dependent upon a status.

What I am trying to get at, is that the unregenerate do not merely "GENERALLY" act in the flesh, they totally live in the flesh. They never act in the Spirit. How could such things be?

Which comes back in full circle to my initial question of whether a pagan's act of love is in part generated/moved/inspired by God's Spirit. According to you, people are able to love without God's Spirit moving in them... (while Jesus says we can do NOTHING of the sort without Him). It seems you are misinterpreting what "in the flesh" means. If it is dependent upon status, Jesus would not have said "I never knew you" to those who didn't do the Father's will. Being "of the spirit" means more than just a name or group that one belongs to.

Francis said:
_______________________________________________________
"Scriptures tell us that those who do not obey God - to include the regenerate - do not have the Spirit of God within them (Acts 5)."
________________________________________________________
I am not absolutely sure what you are referring to in Acts 5. I suspect it is this verse....

Acts 5:32, so the rest of your comment was unnecessary speculation which I won't comment on - in your words, a non-sequitar.

Francis said:
_________________________________________________________________
Those Christians who insisted on living in sin were not going to inherit the Kingdom. Those who did not do the will of the Father, Jesus "never knew them"... On the other hand, Scriptures note that he who loves is of God (1 John).
__________________________________________________________
I suspect that you are referring to 1 John 2
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.

No, again, I am refering to 1 John 4:7. I suppose we are both at fault here, me for making inferences that are not specific enough and you for jumping to conclusions.

Note, however, that I am not speaking that a person is of God when he occasionally loves - but when it becomes a "way of life". That is John's intent. When Love become the principle guiding power in one's life. Such would be an example of whom Paul is refering to in Romans 2:14

The rest of your comment, forgive me if I just state again that the non-sequitar was of your making.

At this point, there are some very fine lines that are difficult to express. In Roman Catholic Theology, prevenient grace precedes faith in time due to baptismal regeneration. In Reformed Theology, regeneration does not precede faith in time, but only in logical sequence. While the concepts might be subtle, they are different. Regeneration, when combined with the preaching of the Gospel, results in faith, and all this happens in the same instant of time in Reformed Theology.

The "order" in Acts varies. The writer of Acts makes it clear, however, that grace and baptism are integrally related to regeneration. The very fact that people BEGIN to seek out God is a sign of God's grace working PRIOR TO regeneration and conversion. For certainly, men do not seek out God without God. ANY feable attempt to consider God and His love must be an act of Grace, and in this case, precedes regeneration.

I am more to the Reformed Baptist side of things, but even my Presbyterian brothers in Christ would not say regeneration occurs at Baptism. Therein is the important difference we are discussing.

Ah, yes, well, that is what the bible refers to as "regeneration" occurs in conjunction with water and the Spirit, in no particular order (as I mention above) but linked. I sense that a lot more could be said to explain sacramentalism to you, but I don't have that sort of time now.

So then, I would agree with prevenient grace, that God works in the unregenerate heart and regenerates it, but then the person in the same instant believes the gospel.

And what of Romans 2:14?

A person can never had heard the Gospel and can demonstrate that a Law had been written in their hearts.

A good text to demonstrate this would be 1 John 5:1. Maybe some other time we can talk about that. Or maybe one of the other Reformed people in this thread will pick things up here. I have written enough for now.

Mondar, this verse is not mutually exclusive. It doesn't say "ONLY" those who love Christ, etc...

If it was, it would contradict 1 John 4:7, which states WHOEVER LOVES...

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

It is only when one loves, forgives, has mercy on others, etc, that is when a person is living in the spirit. The operative word is LIVING.

When one is sinning, living in dissent, turning from God (while part of the Church) is living in the flesh. The operative word, again, is LIVING.

I don't think the operative word for what you described is LIVING - I think it'd be WALKING(Gal 5:25). One can live in the spirit and yet walk according to the flesh - which he is exhorted against. One is to walk in the Spirit - and for that, one needs to live in the Spirit - ie be born of God - be regenerated by His Spirit - have a new nature created in him apart from the fleshly nature he was born with.

Which comes back in full circle to my initial question of whether a pagan's act of love is in part generated/moved/inspired by God's Spirit.

I addressed this in post#56. Would you want me to clarify something from that?

Scriptures tell us that those who do not obey God - to include the regenerate - do not have the Spirit of God within them (Acts 5)

This obedience refers to the obedience to the Gospel command - to believe in Christ. Whosoever obeys the Gospel and believes in Christ, have the indwelling Spirit and are witnesses to the regenerative and sanctifying work of God in them.

And what of Romans 2:14?
A person can never had heard the Gospel and can demonstrate that a Law had been written in their hearts.

As I've already mentioned in my last post(#57) - gentiles must be distinguished from pagans. Romans 2:14 refers to gentiles in the context of people who are non-jews according to the flesh, also being treated the same way before God.

And w.r.t. their receiving eternal life, we know the gentiles did hear the Gospel and they believed in Christ.

Anyway, the intent of Romans 2:14 is to show that even the gentiles(non-jews) have the knowledge of the law of God. This is not, as you say, to show how the gentiles are able to do the law and receive life - it is merely to show that God has given them the law, witnessed by their conscience. This follows from Romans 2:13, which states that the doers of the law will be justified. And lest there be any objection that this disqualifies the gentiles from such a possibility since they weren't given the written law, God states that He has indeed given them a law in their hearts by which the argument in Romans 2 holds - that there is indeed no difference between the jew and the gentile according to the flesh.

It doesn't follow from Rom 2:14 to assume that anyone can keep God's law and gain eternal life - because the very context of Rom 2:14 is set against Rom 2:13 - which is a true statement in itself, though one that will not be practically realised - since it's quite clearly and conclusively stated in Rom 3:19-20, that nobody can be justified by the law.

Also, Rom 2:26 talks about keeping the righteousness of the law, which is contrasted against the righteousness of faith in Rom 10:5-6 - and only the latter is unto eternal life.

It seems you are misinterpreting what "in the flesh" means.

I guess this is the crux of our differences. "The flesh" is simply the nature one is born with into this world. Our nature is what we call the "self" - the "I". Our nature self-generates desires and also the counsel to choose between the desires. Practically, our flesh is our whole life that can be attributed to "us".

This is contrasted with the regenerated nature - a new nature created in us by God at the time of our conversion from sinner to a redeemed child of God. This regenerated nature too provides desires and the counsel to act upon these desires. But this cannot be attributed to "us", because these are of God and not of our "self".

The fleshly nature is corrupted and enslaved by sin in the flesh - such a nature cannot obey the commandments of God. The regenerated nature is a godly nature, it cannot but do the will of God. The regenerated man, however, is open to both these nature's influences while the unregenerate has only the fleshly nature. After the final resurrection, all in the kingdom of God will have only the regenerated godly nature - the flesh having passed away.

Now, Philippians 3:4-6 describe Paul's entire life before his conversion, and that's what the flesh is. On the surface, nothing that he listed there seems to be evil in nature - though that's what he terms them all, in light of Christ.

 

[francisdesales]

I don't think the operative word for what you described is LIVING - I think it'd be WALKING(Gal 5:25). One can live in the spirit and yet walk according to the flesh - which he is exhorted against. One is to walk in the Spirit - and for that, one needs to live in the Spirit - ie be born of God - be regenerated by His Spirit - have a new nature created in him apart from the fleshly nature he was born with.

Distinction without difference. Your response is argumentative, quite frankly.

As I've already mentioned in my last post(#57) - gentiles must be distinguished from pagans.

Another distinction without difference...

Paul makes it clear that these pagans/Gentiles/non-Jews did not have the Law written for them on stone. This is not true of Gentile Christians who converted later to the faith. The passage in Romans 2 speaks of someone who does NOT have the Law:


For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) Romans 2:14-15
It is beyond doubt that Paul is speaking of current pagans/Gentiles/non-Jews. They are synonymous terms for this purpose. They have not the Law. Gentile Christians are indeed aware of the Law, the Decalogue. They hear the Word of God (OT) proclaimed to them. They are not ignorant of the written Law. This cannot refer to Gentile Christians, but pagans/Gentiles who have not been formally introduced to the Gospel.

Romans 2:14 refers to gentiles in the context of people who are non-jews according to the flesh, also being treated the same way before God.

And this separates them from "pagans" how again?

And w.r.t. their receiving eternal life, we know the gentiles did hear the Gospel and they believed in Christ.

As do pagans who hear the Word...

Brother, there is no distinction between a Gentile before conversion and a pagan who converts to Christianty later. They are both non-Jew. The term "pagan" is dropped once they become Christian. They are considered "Gentile". But the discussion is about before they ever hear the formal gospel. That is the entire point of my discussion - pagans/Gentiles before entering the Church who are able to obey the Law written in their hearts by God. They have not heard the Law - it is written in their hearts.

This is not, as you say, to show how the gentiles are able to do the law and receive life - it is merely to show that God has given them the law, witnessed by their conscience.

Wrong again, that is NOT what the passage says... It says quite the OPPOSITE, if you look beyond your theology...

Read Romans 2:6-14 very carefully. The sense is that God rewards those who DO the Law, not those who HEAR the Law. There is absolutely NO suggestion that "no one can do the law"... The opposite is taken for granted, for they are given eternal life!!!

Only this makes sense of Paul discussing how some obey the Law and never heard it - it is written in their hearts.... To the Jew, they are scratching their heads "only WE have the law. How could God save these pagans???" Paul explains that it is God Who blows where He wills.

And of course, the beginning of this passage speaks of God granting eternal life to those people who DO the Word of God. God is no respecter of men - and so Jews who hear the law but don't do it are condemned - while those who never heard the law and obey it are rewarded... Look carefully at 6-9. Jew and Gentile. Eternal life rendered to EVERY man according to his deeds.

Now, we understand that these deeds do not earn salvation. But God's judgment allows men to enter into the Kingdom when they respond to His stirring of the heart.

I guess this is the crux of our differences. "The flesh" is simply the nature one is born with into this world.

I realize that "flesh" is what adheres to our bones, etc... But Paul uses the term to refer to how we act. One "in the flesh" is one who commits evil, not one who has been given a status of regenerated. While the two are often synonymous, everyone knows that Christians do not always follow the Spirit, but rather, follow the flesh.

Thus, he notes that some Christians are walking in the flesh. If this refers to a status, then how could anyone walk in the flesh again? Christians who do evil are walking in the flesh. Pagans/Gentiles who obey God's will are walking in the Spirit (Paul calls them "spiritually circumcised).

Having a new nature does not mean one always walks in the Spirit. That is crystal clear from Paul himself when he warns Christians over and over to persevere, to continue to walk in Christ, to not fall into sin, etc. Even the regenerated can walk in the flesh. That is the reality of life. Christians sin, they sometimes walk in the flesh. Or are you suggesting that a Christian who sins is walking in the Spirit while sinning???

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

Mondar,

You know better to play that game. You DO realize the context of Paul's quotes from the Psalms, don't you?

After reading the source, it is clear that Paul means "The wicked do not seek after God", for clearly, in some of the SAME Psalms, we have the righteous seeking God!

Regards

I agree, Joe. Your post made me think of John 1:9 - "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." That's how God draws all men to Himself as Jesus is the Light. Through the work of the Spirit, God creates in human hearts the desire and willingness to choose good....all men are drawn to the light, enabling them to choose Christ or to persist in their enslavement to sin.

In regards to the unregenerate, I think of Romans 14:23b - "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

 

[francisdesales]

I agree, Joe. Your post made me think of John 1:9 - "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." That's how God draws all men to Himself as Jesus is the Light. Through the work of the Spirit, God creates in human hearts the desire and willingness to choose good....all men are drawn to the light, enabling them to choose Christ or to persist in their enslavement to sin.

Good to hear from you again, long time.

I agree, but I think at the time of such decision, we don't consider it "God v. slavery", although that is what it amounts to. No one would choose "slavery". The devil makes "slavery" a good option in our minds, so we rationalize and justify our selfish decision, which we think is "good" at the time. If our hearts are fixated on our own selfish desires and needs, we will likely choose to be "enslaved" to those desires.

In regards to the unregenerate, I think of Romans 14:23b - "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

I think Paul may have in mind something more broad and general when he speaks of "faith". The very idea of "religion" in the history and culture of man is one of seeking out the divine. Consider how Paul speaks of the Athenians. It may very well have false ideas that lead men astray, but the IDEA in of itself is one that seeks out the divine. Christians have always recognized that "pagans" have looked for God, stumbling through the dark, esp. the Greek philosophers, even calling them "proto-Christians". At times, God has allowed Himself to be found, as ALL legitimate religions have SOME truth - and God is Truth Itself.

Perhaps at that level, "faith" from the ignorant is acceptable to God, since it is God Who places the "unwritten Law" in a person's heart. Remember, the Law includes the first commandment. Romans 1 tells us that people CAN "know" something about the Creator of the Universe at some level to seek Him out.

I think Paul leaves the door open for the work of the Spirit outside of the visible realm of the Church communities that he ministers to...

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

Good to hear from you again, long time.

I agree, but I think at the time of such decision, we don't consider it "God v. slavery", although that is what it amounts to. No one would choose "slavery". The devil makes "slavery" a good option in our minds, so we rationalize and justify our selfish decision, which we think is "good" at the time. If our hearts are fixated on our own selfish desires and needs, we will likely choose to be "enslaved" to those desires.



I think Paul may have in mind something more broad and general when he speaks of "faith". The very idea of "religion" in the history and culture of man is one of seeking out the divine. Consider how Paul speaks of the Athenians. It may very well have false ideas that lead men astray, but the IDEA in of itself is one that seeks out the divine. Christians have always recognized that "pagans" have looked for God, stumbling through the dark, esp. the Greek philosophers, even calling them "proto-Christians". At times, God has allowed Himself to be found, as ALL legitimate religions have SOME truth - and God is Truth Itself.

Perhaps at that level, "faith" from the ignorant is acceptable to God, since it is God Who places the "unwritten Law" in a person's heart. Remember, the Law includes the first commandment. Romans 1 tells us that people CAN "know" something about the Creator of the Universe at some level to seek Him out.

I think Paul leaves the door open for the work of the Spirit outside of the visible realm of the Church communities that he ministers to...

Regards

What a blessing you are, brother.

I just love the insight you've provided in this thread.
Thank you for some wonderful food for thought. I can only say AMEN.

 

[francisdesales]

What a blessing you are, brother.

I just love the insight you've provided in this thread.
Thank you for some wonderful food for thought. I can only say AMEN.

How very kind. Good to hear from you again and glad we do agree!

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

The term "pagan" is dropped once they become Christian.

If you were using the word "pagan" simply to refer to certain people before they became spiritually circumcised, I have no issues over that at all. I have stated something to this exact same effect earlier -
ivdavid - "A pagan can always be spiritually circumcised, at which point he ceases to be a pagan ie he ceases to worship all false gods."

What led down this line of argument were your questions regarding the incas etc. -
francisdesales - "Is a loving Indian in the Amazon jungle an "unbeliever" in God's mind?"
I held on to the distinction to state that these incas or this Indian in the Amazon cannot be considered spiritually circumcised if they continue to worship a false god(s), reference-names apart. If these too love out of their love for the true nature of God, reference-names apart again, then these do cease to be "pagans" and for all spiritual purposes, are to be deemed believers in Christ. What I was against, is the implication that one could be of God even when they continued to worship false god(s) irrespective of their externally seen 'good' deeds. Just to get this out of the way, do you believe in such a possibility?

francisdesales - "Pagans/Gentiles who obey God's will are walking in the Spirit (Paul calls them spiritually circumcised)."
You seem to have contrasted these against Christians(I'm not sure, so I'm getting it clarified here) - wouldn't these pagans/gentiles also be Christians if they are spiritually circumcised?

Wrong again, that is NOT what the passage says... It says quite the OPPOSITE, if you look beyond your theology...

Why can't we carry on a non-personal discussion dealing just with premises and inferences? Why do you feel this same statement that you made is not applicable to you?

It's pretty clear we are not agreed upon certain doctrines while we are very well agreed upon certain other doctrines. Why must that turn to personal comments?


Anyway,

The sense is that God rewards those who DO the Law, not those who HEAR the Law.

I'd say the entire passage has a conditional tone of argument rather than a descriptive tone of what actually happens in reality - and yes, it does say God will render eternal life to those who do the law, as I've already mentioned -
ivdavid - "This follows from Romans 2:13, which states that the doers of the law will be justified."

Only, I believe this is not practically realised but was rather put forth as argument whereas you seem to believe it is practically possible for one to be justified by doing the law.

I quoted Rom 3:19-20 which is the conclusion Paul is heading towards in his first 3 chapters - and which says nobody is justified by doing the law - thereby showing that Romans 2:13 is an argument that is true in itself but not practically realised.

Also, consider Rom 2:26 - would you say that this verse leads to the conclusion that the uncircumcision receive eternal life by keeping the righteousness of the law? I'd say this is an argumentative point which can never be realised in reality from what's said in Rom 10:3-5. This affirms that Rom 2 has a conditional tone of argument rather than a descriptive tone.

Eternal life rendered to EVERY man according to his deeds.
Now, we understand that these deeds do not earn salvation. But God's judgment allows men to enter into the Kingdom when they respond to His stirring of the heart.

I really can't comprehend the ambiguity in your statements - that one is rendered eternal life according to his deeds and yet that these deeds do not earn eternal life. Either the former statement is an argument not practically realised or the latter statement is true - aren't these two mutually exclusive?

If you are saying that one's inner responses of the heart play a role in earning one's salvation - then eternal life ought to be rendered according to one's inner responses. If you are saying that one's deeds do not earn salvation, then eternal life cannot be based on one's deeds. Or if you permit a strict connection between inner responses resulting in corresponding deeds, then too the conflict remains. Please elaborate on how you're actually seeing this, for I presently don't understand how you reconcile these beliefs which seem to be mutually exclusive to me at this point in time.

Having a new nature does not mean one always walks in the Spirit.... Even the regenerated can walk in the flesh.

I did state this -
ivdavid - "The regenerated man, however, is open to both these nature's influences while the unregenerate has only the fleshly nature."

So yes, though the regenerated man lives in the spirit, he can be found to walk in the flesh - therein the relevance of the distinction between "living" and "walking", as seen in Gal 5:25.

 

[ivdavid]

At times, God has allowed Himself to be found, as ALL legitimate religions have SOME truth - and God is Truth Itself.

I thought God already allowed Himself to be found - at least that's what I gather from Rom 1:19-20. So shouldn't we be saying that ALL legitimate religions have SOME corruption of the truth - in that, they are not seeking the one true God but are rather vain in their imaginations(v.21)?

You DO realize the context of Paul's quotes from the Psalms, don't you?

Regarding Rom 3:10-18, they are indeed quotes from the Psalms in the context of referring to the sinner. But what of the context in Romans 3 itself? When in v.9 Paul says that ALL are under sin, does that exclude any part of the world? The finishing v.19 refers to ALL the world - and hence all the verses v.10-18 seem to be applied to ALL the world by Paul in that context - Unless you are implying that there are some who are not under sin and hence not guilty before God.

 

[francisdesales]

I thought God already allowed Himself to be found - at least that's what I gather from Rom 1:19-20. So shouldn't we be saying that ALL legitimate religions have SOME corruption of the truth - in that, they are not seeking the one true God but are rather vain in their imaginations(v.21)?

If a religion has "some" truth, doesn't it follow that it has "some" corruption, as well?

I think it is wise not to presume what others are seeking, especially when the Bible clearly states that some DO seek out the Divine - and are led by God Himself. Perhaps they have a very vague notion of God, perhaps it is inaccurate, or it falls into idolatry. Nonetheless, religion is an effort to direct man's natural tendency to seek out beauty, truth, and the Divine. I think we agree that most don't find it, give up, or turn this seeking into something more "human". God needs to reveal Himself to be found.

Regarding Rom 3:10-18, they are indeed quotes from the Psalms in the context of referring to the sinner. But what of the context in Romans 3 itself? When in v.9 Paul says that ALL are under sin, does that exclude any part of the world?

The argument is that even Jews are under the pressures of sin. Not that no one can obey God's will. The end of Romans 2 and the beginning of Romans 3 is a natural flow, the point that SOME Gentile/pagans are considered "spiritual Jews" while Paul gives a litany of verses that proud Jews would find offensive and humbling, since they are written by David ABOUT JEWS! Wicked Jews... The point is that God is not giving the Jews a free pass to get into the Kingdom, just because they are Jews in the flesh. Paul gives Scriptural evidence that Jews are not immune to being wicked, just because they HAVE the Law. HAVING the Law means little, if they don't follow it. And clearly, some do follow the Law. Anyone reading the Psalms will see that this is the case. The entire point of Psalm 119, for example, is the righteous man seeking to follow God's will - and doing it...

Romans 3 is not about "no one can do God's will". It is about the Jews and the Gentiles BOTH being under the reign of sin, subject to temptations that take one away from a relationship with God. Thus, the pride of the Jewish nation, the possession of the Law, means nothing, since God can write it on a pagan's heart and that pagan will be rewarded - while the intransigent, proud Jew who does not obey the Law will be punished accordingly. Paul mentions that those who obey the Law will be rewarded. Doesn't this very statement mean that some CAN and DO follow that Law, written in their hearts if necessary, by God Himself? That God draws such people to Him?

The finishing v.19 refers to ALL the world - and hence all the verses v.10-18 seem to be applied to ALL the world by Paul in that context - Unless you are implying that there are some who are not under sin and hence not guilty before God.

Of course not. Yes, indeed, all the world is subjected to temptations and sin. Without God, we are each and every one of us lost. That is beyond question.

Paul is not making a statement, though, that NO ONE can seek out God, NO ONE can do anything good. That would be a direct contradication of Romans 2 that he just made!!! The argument is against proud Jews who think they are above the necessity of following the SPIRIT of the Law - and holding those impure actions up to God as if God owes them salvation.

Regards

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Most professing Christians -

"But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

Really..? Who is suggesting such a thing ?"

Plenty of folks -

Most denominations INCLUDING the ones that teach salvation by FAITH ONLY teach EXACTLY this situation - i.e. Salvation is by Faith - BUT the maintenance of that salvation must be through "works". And they DON'T teach it as "Doctrine", of course - but through their actions, and suggestions, and judgements of folks who DON'T "have the works" that they THINK should accompany somebody who's "really saved".

It's probably one of the BIGGEST real problems in Christendom in 2011 - we don't REALLY believe it's by Faith, and we prove it by our actions.

 

[glorydaz]

How very kind. Good to hear from you again and glad we do agree!

Regards

It's very interesting watching you and ivdavid discussing this very complicated issue in such a reasonable way. I see you two drawing closer in your understanding, and I can't help but marvel at the way we're truly members of the same body. It's not often easy to articulate our insights to one another without just sticking to a particular set of verses. It's when verses seem to contradict...each man stressing one verse that trouble arises. It's rare, on a forum, to see two believers taking the time to discuss and clarify. I can remember having a few go-rounds with you, but we came to a lot of agreement when I was here last. You make me happy I returned. Lord bless you, friend.