Biblical Election and Predestination

[Drew]

First, the concept of free will is not inherent in the word "anapologeetos" (witout excuse). Can you show me any lexicon that includes the term free will in the definition? Below is an abbreviated defination from Thayer.

Thayer Definition:
1) without defense or excuse
2) that which cannot be defended, inexcusable
Part of Speech: adjective

To come up with the term having the concept of free will implied, should not it be part of the definition at least in one lexicon?

You seem to argue that just because "free will" is not mentionned in these definitions, it is not there. Well here is the definition of a male:

male: a male person : a man or a boy b: an individual that produces small usually motile gametes (as spermatozoa or spermatozoids) which fertilize the eggs of a female

Do definitions (a) and (b), which focus on "maleness" in respect to being a human being say that male human beings have penises? No they do not. Do male human beings have penises? Yes they do. If I were to take your line of reasoning, I would question the assertion that males have penises, because the dictionary definition does not indicate this.

It is simply incorrect to argue as you do here. The absence of specific reference to "free will" in relation to the concept of an excuse is not evidence of the lack a link. In fact, I suggest that the reason why "free will" is not mentioned in such definitions is precisely because it is so foudational to the very concept, that it would only be stating the obvious to explicitly mention this.

There is no circular reasoning on my part. I am just doing straightforward exegesis in the passage, you are not. You are importing concepts foreign to the context.

I know you feel strongly about free will. But it is simply not in Romans 1:20. Free will is a concept that you are bringing into the text (isogesis) and not taking from the text (exegesis).

I could make precisely the same accusation to you, but I won't because it would be unfair. You say that "free will" is not bundled into being "without excuse". Well, I could claim that "lack of freedom" is a concept that you have imported into the notion of being "in slavery".

What would your counterargument to this be? Presumably you will say that "absence of freedom is entailed by the concept of slavery" and would appeal to the social contract by which we all agree that, indeed, slaves do not have freedom. And you would be right to do so.

I am doing precisely the same thing in respect to the notion of being "without excuse" - I appeal to the meaning of the concept, as universally held by people. And people universally hold that to be "without excuse" is to be in a state that you had the freedom to avoid being in.

Consciously or not, you read Scriptural statements that imply no free will, and, in the process of reading the words in those statement, you confer meaning based on the societally agreed meaning of the word. Otherwise you would get nowhere.

You cannot then deny me the same right. I read "without excuse" in Romans 1:20 and appeal to the universally held notion that free will is implied. You read "slave" in Romans 6 and do the exact same thing in respect to the concept of being a slave.

The reader will know that your statement "Free will is a concept that you are bringing into the text (isogesis)" can be echoed back at you thus in respect to stuff in Romans 6 "Absence of Free will is a concept that you are bringing into the text that says we were slaves to sin (isogesis).

I agree that the concept of free will is not explicitly present in "without excuse"

You have to agree that the concept of "lack of freedom" is not explictly present in the concept of being "in slavery".

 

[JayR]

It wasn't me that made the assertion - so tell me pray, where does scripture say the 'non-elect' go to hell?

And yet you make the assertion that it doesn't say it through your question. Romans 9. Some were made as vessels for honor, which are the elect, and some were made as vessels for dishonor, which are the damned. Some were prepared as vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, which are the damned, and some were made as vessels of mercy prepared for glory, which are the elect.

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calls.) It was said to her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Without God's calling which is made by His election and mercy according to the counsel of His will, He hates you. God hates workers of iniquity, and those who aren't called are already prepared for hell, because God hated them before He even created them, and has prepared them as vessels for destruction.

So why would you tell someone who is not the elect that they need the blood of Christ?

I already answered your question. I don't know whether he is part of the elect or not and neither do you, so I'm going to treat him as I ought to, as a human being who doesn't know one way or the other. Regardless of whether he is or not, the statement that he needs the blood of Christ is true, and he does need it either way, only he won't get it if he's not part of the elect. I'm going to tell him what he needs in hope that he is part of the elect and that God will grant him repentance and faith according to His mercy and the counsel of His will.

 

[Drew]

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calls.) It was said to her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

You may believe that this is about election to salvation or to loss, but Paul does not:

11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badâ€â€in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who callsâ€â€she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Don't take my word on this - read what Paul himself says. He is referring to the fact that God elects Esau (the older) to serve the younger (Jacob). He is not talking about one of them being predestined to heaven and the other to hell.

 

[Orion]

So, once again, JayR, if I am NOT part of the elect, the blood of Jesus is meaningless to me, and so is seeking God. I may even fool myself in thinking that I am doing exactly what I'm supposed to do BECAUSE it is all "taken on faith" that I have humbled myself, repented, and accepted Christ, . . . . . .but in the end, I could be standing before God who will say, "Sorry, but you were never elected."

For what it's worth, it isn't a "pride" in my heart that is my problem. I would gladly accept the truth if it came to me undenyable! But I'm not sure I would ever be comfortable in a Heaven ruled by a diety who purposefully created billions and billions of souls only to find pleasure in their torment in Hell. I can't believe that anyone COULD be comfortable in that place! And if we are to "have the mind of Christ", I suppose that it would also give ME pleasure to see them in their torment for all eternity. In my estimation, . . . that's pretty cold blooded. :

 

[JayR]

But I'm not sure I would ever be comfortable in a Heaven ruled by a diety who purposefully created billions and billions of souls only to find pleasure in their torment in Hell. I can't believe that anyone COULD be comfortable in that place!

This is your problem. You want a safe haven from hell but you aren't interested at all in having fellowship with the person of God. You want to go to heaven, but you don't want God to be there when you get there, because you hate Him.

And if we are to "have the mind of Christ", I suppose that it would also give ME pleasure to see them in their torment for all eternity. In my estimation

When the elect are in heaven they are going to see God as He is, and when they see those predestined to damnation burning in hell, they are going to see perfect justice being executed.

I may even fool myself in thinking that I am doing exactly what I'm supposed to do BECAUSE it is all "taken on faith" that I have humbled myself, repented, and accepted Christ

You don't accept Christ until after He accepts you, before He accepts you or puts His Spirit within you, you hate Him. Christ accepts you according to His Fathers will who chooses His elect according to the counsel of His will and gives them to His Son. Christ makes you free.

 

[JayR]

You may believe that this is about election to salvation or to loss, but Paul does not:

11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badâ€â€in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who callsâ€â€she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Don't take my word on this - read what Paul himself says. He is referring to the fact that God elects Esau (the older) to serve the younger (Jacob). He is not talking about one of them being predestined to heaven and the other to hell.

You don't understand Romans 9. God hates Esau. To this very moment He hates him. Esau is in hell. Why? Because before he was even born according to God's election as this verse which you don't understand teaches, God hated him.

 

[Drew]

You may believe that this is about election to salvation or to loss, but Paul does not:

11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badâ€â€in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who callsâ€â€she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Don't take my word on this - read what Paul himself says. He is referring to the fact that God elects Esau (the older) to serve the younger (Jacob). He is not talking about one of them being predestined to heaven and the other to hell.

You don't understand Romans 9. God hates Esau. To this very moment He hates him. Esau is in hell. Why? Because before he was even born according to God's election as this verse which you don't understand teaches, God hated him.

Paul clearly states the purpose of the election in respect to Esau and Jacob - the older will serve the younger. Don't tell me that I misunderstand Romans, I am only agreeing with Paul. It is you who is inserting a second unstated election of Esau to damnation here. I will go with what Paul says and take my chances.

Let's chase up the reference made in the statement "Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated", shall we?. The reference is Malachi 1:2-3:

I have loved you," says the LORD But you say, "How have You loved us?" "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD "Yet I have loved Jacob; 3but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness."

According to the people who put together the NET Bible re this Malachi text:

Re: “and I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated.â€Â: The context indicates this is technical covenant vocabulary in which “love†and “hate†are synonymous with “choose†and “reject†respectively (see Deut 7:8; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 9:15; 11:1).

If these commentators are correct, one cannot make the argument "well since God hated Esau, this implies that He must have sent him to hell, since that is the perfect manifestation of hate".

That seems to be your only possible way to rescue your take on the Romans 9 material which, as the reader will know, already gives us the meaning of election: Esau was elected to serve the younger. But even if you insist that there is an additional election here - an election of Esau to hell because God hates him, that argument is underscut by what the commentators say in respect to the proper way to conceive of "hate" - it is not "hatred" in the conventional sense, it is hatred in the "rejection" sense in the covenantal sense. And that certainly is not strong enough to conclude that God has elected Esau to hell.

Here is just one of the references that the commentators cite re the covenantal sense of "love" and "hate". I will comment on the others in a follow-up post:

Deuteronomy 7:8 but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Sound familiar? Romans 9 - the hardening of Pharoah and God's statement about Pharoah that "I raised you (Pharoah) up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

Perhaps I am reaching here, but one can never underestimate both Paul's brilliance and his knowledge of the scriptures. I think Paul, when he writes Romans 9, and refers to the "love" God has for Jacob, he has in mind this specifically covenantal reference - he quotes Malachi 1 which deploys the concept of love which is in turn amplified by this text from Deuteronomy.

The oath is the covenant. And God does real things in this world to fulfill his covenant - such as delivering the Jews from Egypt. And in Romans 9, I have been arguing that the issue is the election of Israel - an election to be the place where the sin of the world is accumulated and then passed onto Jesus so that salvation can then spread to the world. From Romans 11:

For if their (Israel's) rejection is the reconciliation of the world,....

And note what we have in Malachi 1, the same chapter that Paul refers to in Romans 9 in respect to Esau and Jacob:

My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty

This all about the covenant - God covenantally promised to bless the whole world (see texts from Genesis). Pauls' reference to the "hating" of Esau and the "loving" of Jacob is all about God's plan to fulfill the covenant. And Esau and Jacob, and all Israel have been elected to play specific roles in order to make this all come to pass. This is not about "where they go when they die".

To see the "election" in Romans 9 as being about "going to heaven / hell when you die" misses the covenantal theme.

 

[JayR]

You are wrong, radically wrong, Drew.

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself. He that speaks of himself seeks his own glory: but he that seeks his glory that sent him, the same is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him."

The problem is that you aren't seeking God's glory and defending His truth for His name's sake. You are seeking your own glory in an attempt to become some esteemed philosophical thinker who wins lots of arguments. You are more concerned about winning arguments and pursuading people to take your view than you are for the truth and for God's glory.

Do you cry out for God to glorify His name and to use you to glorify His name? Do you cry out to Him for truth? Do you cry out to Him to let all you do be for His glory?

I'm not seeking my own glory here. I have no glory and want no glory. I'm a slave, and my Master is all that matters. I seek His glory and none else, by His graces, because He is worthy, I am nothing. I know of the doctrine, because by God's grace He causes me to do His will, and He has given it to me. Yours is false, and decietful, and lies, and you continue pushing it because you don't care about the truth, you care about winning arguments.

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

I KNOW the truth, because God has revealed it to me, and it has set me free. You don't. You are teaching lies, and you don't know that they are true, because God hasn't revealed them to you, but you have come up with them out of your own understanding and corrupt mind. That's why God tells us, "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding." You seem to have that switched around. God's word isn't brain surgery. If you would only trust in Him like a child and do His will He would reveal it to you.

"“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Notice how it is the ones who do the will of their Father in heaven who will enter into the kingdom and who know of the doctrine. You are prophesying in God's name by claiming truths about His word, but you are teaching lies and false interpretations. Check your motives Drew, because if they aren't absolutely set on glorifying God, it may very well be that you don't know Him, and you are living for self and for your own glory.

"Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

 

[GraceBwithU]

This is your problem. You want a safe haven from hell but you aren't interested at all in having fellowship with the person of God. You want to go to heaven, but you don't want God to be there when you get there, because you hate Him.

No JayR…this sounds hypocritical . Are you saying that you are not interested in being saved from hell? Are you saying you do not want to go to heaven?

but you don't want God to be there when you get there, because you hate Him.

Wow...!!!! orion has spoken of many feelings but this was never stated. Shame on you!!

When the elect are in heaven they are going to see God as He is, and when they see those predestined to damnation burning in hell, they are going to see perfect justice being executed.

Predestining a soul to damnation…hum…this quite frankly takes away any justice…God has not done this…and will not.

How could a loving God that has offered His grace of salvation create some for damnation? Where is the justice in this...quite frankly this is not justice at all, this is prejudice not justice. This describes a lynch mob of the old west, NOT saving grace!

 

[Drew]

"The problem is that you aren't seeking God's glory and defending His truth for His name's sake. You are seeking your own glory in an attempt to become some esteemed philosophical thinker who wins lots of arguments. You are more concerned about winning arguments and pursuading people to take your view than you are for the truth and for God's glory.

This only makes you look cornered. People will read the scriptural arguments that I have presented. If the arguments work, they work. If they fail, they fail. I suggest that your purposes will be better served by actually engaging the issue instead of casting aspersions on my character. You have zero evidence to support your speculations here. All you have from me is a set of posts that contain Scriptural arguments. I leave it to the reader to judge them on their content.

I KNOW the truth, because God has revealed it to me, and it has set me free. You don't.

Well then, let's forget searching the scriptures and all gather at your feet to receive the truth.

You are teaching lies,..."

I would be careful about saying this. You may incur the ire of management.

 

[Orion]

This is your problem. You want a safe haven from hell but you aren't interested at all in having fellowship with the person of God. You want to go to heaven, but you don't want God to be there when you get there, because you hate Him.

You don't accept Christ until after He accepts you, before He accepts you or puts His Spirit within you, you hate Him. Christ accepts you according to His Fathers will who chooses His elect according to the counsel of His will and gives them to His Son. Christ makes you free.

Excuse me, but WHO ARE YOU to tell ME who I hate?!!! You scare me, you and your views on who YOU think God is. You talk about MY pride, but you are oozing pride in "who you think you are and other aren't", and it is worse because you feel free to call people "God haters", judging me and other!! I will tell you this, . . . . I would not want to go to YOUR heaven. This is far different then ME saying that I "hate God", which I have never said that, nor do I harbor those feelings. I disagree with you, and [sure] a lot of other Christians, but I hate no one!!!! :x

 

[JayR]

Are you saying that you are not interested in being saved from hell? Are you saying you do not want to go to heaven?

I am saved from hell. I'm also VERY interested in being in communion with the person of God. I don't just want to go to heaven to have a safe haven from hell, I want to know God and be with God forever. Heaven would be nothing if God wasn't there. God is what makes heaven what it is, without God, heaven would be hell.

Wow...!!!! orion has spoken of many feelings but this was never stated. Shame on you!!

If he is yet unconverted, which he openly admits, then he hates God. He is at enmity with Him, and wants nothing to do with Him. He would love a safe haven from hell, but just like any other unbeliever, He doesn't want God to be in that safe haven, because he hates Him. God's word declares it.

Predestining a soul to damnation…hum…this quite frankly takes away any justice…God has not done this…and will not.

How could a loving God that has offered His grace of salvation create some for damnation? Where is the justice in this...quite frankly this is not justice at all, this is prejudice not justice. This describes a lynch mob of the old west, NOT saving grace!

Do you realize that if you are wrong, which you are, you are blaspheming God in a horrendous way? God has created some for damnation, and He is perfectly just and righteous in doing so. He has elected them to hell, and He is just in sending them there, just like He would have been just in sending the elect there if He didn't, by His own will and unmerited undeserving favor, die for them under His own wrath and drink their hell for them. What you don't understand is that you deserve to burn in hell forever. Every single man on this earth deserves to burn in hell forever. His justice demands it. We have all sinned against God in horrible, horrendous ways, and if He so pleased He could throw every single one of us into hell forever and execute justice in perfect righteousness in the process. The fact that God chose to save a remnant which we call His elect, by His grace, is a demonstration of His love and mercy and unmerited favor, but the fact that He also chose not to save some but to justly send them where we all deserve to go is PERFECT JUSTICE, and you claiming otherwise is horrendous blasphemous trash.

 

[JayR]

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

Enmity- a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.

You hate God.

 

[Orion]

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

Enmity- a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.

You hate God.

No, I don't hate God. YOU have placed characteristics upon God. . . . . you, a simple created man, . . . . . that are untrue and you mutilate scripture fooling your own self. You need to stop listening to "hostile preachers".

 

[Drew]

Further to the issue of what it means for God to love Jacob and hate Esau:

To review: In Romans 9, when Paul refers to "hating" Esau and "loving" Jacob, he is quoting Malachi 1. It is further asserted that the real sense of "love" and "hate" are "choose" and "reject", respectively, as specifically understood in covenantal terms. Here is Jeremiah 31:3, which uses the term "love":

The LORD appeared to us in the past, saying:
"I have loved you with an everlasting love;
I have drawn you with loving-kindness.

While it is obviously possible that this kind of love could be made to work with the notion that God has "loved" Jacob by pre-destining Him to Heaven, I suggest a more focused and precise meaning, Jeremiah 31 is a well known passage about how God will rescue Israel from exile in fidelity with the covenant:

Hear the word of the LORD, O nations;
proclaim it in distant coastlands:
'He who scattered Israel will gather them
and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.

So there is hope for your future,"
declares the LORD.
"Your children will return to their own land

The sense of love we get from Jeremiah here is rather specific - God's love is made manifest by His covenant faithfulness. And in this instance, it is the covenantal promise of return from exile that is put forth.

If one looks at Romans 9 through the first half of 10, we see the covenant story being retold. This theme is clearly there even if the word "covenant" does not appear explicitly. We start with Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then Moses vs Pharoah, then covenantal threats of exile, and finally covenant renewal (10:6 quotes a famous covenant renewal passage from Deuteronomy 30).

The covenant is clearly on Paul's mind as he writes Romans 9. In fact, Romans 9 is Paul's apologetic as to how the fate that has befallen Israel - they have rejected her Messiah - is, strangely enough, in perfect harmony with the covenant.

Given this, and given his allusion to Malachi 1 in reference to Esau and Jacob, it is highly likely that when he refers to God "loving" Jacob, He is thinking in covenantal terms, in terms of God "choosing" Jacob to serve some specific covenantal purpose. To have Paul intending us to see this "love" as the "love that elects to heaven" would have Paul deviating from his covenantal focus - how God has worked in history to redeem mankind. And Paul is not that kind of a writer - he is a highly skilled one who stays "on topic".

Obviously the fulfillment of the covenant has salvation implications for individuals (understatement to say the least). But these are "overtones", not the "fundamental". Paul is focused on God's sovereign control over people and nations in working through history to bring the covenant to its climax in Jesus. He is not really addressing the issue of how individual persons get justified.

 

[JayR]

This only makes you look cornered. People will read the scriptural arguments that I have presented. If the arguments work, they work. If they fail, they fail.

It's not about arguments. It's about truth. Do you have any concept of truth at all? Truth is like a blazing flare in the middle of an endless dark pit. You can see it. It is so clear and obvious that you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is true. God's people hear the truth. The devil's people can't. The devil's people are blinded to the truth and have darkened minds. You are taking burnt out candles falling along side the blazing flare and attempting to string them together and light them by your own power in order to make them shine brighter than the flare. You've failed before you've even began. False arguments won't pursuade real Christians, because real Christians KNOW the truth.

 

[Drew]

False arguments won't pursuade real Christians, because real Christians KNOW the truth.

The "devil's people" stuff will only earn you a poke from management, trust me.

If the arguments are false, presumably you can explain to us lesser mortals - who have to actually think and reason about the sciptures - exactly how they are wrong. Either explain scripturally and rationally how they are wrong or insert a mirror into the path of that magic truth beam that God directs into your mind, and point it my way so that I can share in the illumination....

 

[JayR]

If the arguments are false, presumably you can explain to us lesser mortals - who have to actually think and reason about the sciptures - exactly how they are wrong.

I've already done that. If a man has the Spirit of truth dwelling within him, and he sees truth, he agrees with it. I've explained Romans 9 to you in truth many times, and you've denied it, and came back with philosophy and vain deceit.

Either explain scripturally and rationally how they are wrong or insert a mirror into the path of that magic truth beam that God directs into your mind, and point it my way so that I can share in the illumination....

It's not a magic truth beam, it's the Holy Spirit and the promise of God to His people.

 

[Drew]

I've already done that. If a man has the Spirit of truth dwelling within him, and he sees truth, he agrees with it. I've explained Romans 9 to you in truth many times, and you've denied it, and came back with philosophy and vain deceit.

Which specific posts? And please note that merely stating your position is nothing more than an assertion. Which posts actually support your claims about election in Romans 9?

 

[mondar]

First, the concept of free will is not inherent in the word "anapologeetos" (witout excuse). Can you show me any lexicon that includes the term free will in the definition? Below is an abbreviated defination from Thayer.

Thayer Definition:
1) without defense or excuse
2) that which cannot be defended, inexcusable
Part of Speech: adjective

To come up with the term having the concept of free will implied, should not it be part of the definition at least in one lexicon?

You seem to argue that just because "free will" is not mentionned in these definitions, it is not there. Well here is the definition of a male:

male: a male person : a man or a boy b: an individual that produces small usually motile gametes (as spermatozoa or spermatozoids) which fertilize the eggs of a female

Do definitions (a) and (b), which focus on "maleness" in respect to being a human being say that male human beings have penises? No they do not. Do male human beings have penises? Yes they do. If I were to take your line of reasoning, I would question the assertion that males have penises, because the dictionary definition does not indicate this.

It is simply incorrect to argue as you do here. The absence of specific reference to "free will" in relation to the concept of an excuse is not evidence of the lack a link. In fact, I suggest that the reason why "free will" is not mentioned in such definitions is precisely because it is so foudational to the very concept, that it would only be stating the obvious to explicitly mention this.

Says who? What you are asking for is the right to import any concept into any word you desire. You are asking for eisegesis to be the rule of bible study. We can continue this conversation but it seems to be getting absurd. You say that free will is a basic part of the definition of the words "without excuse" but present no evidence. You are not willing to consult lexicons, you are not interested in demonstrating from the context the meaning of the word, in fact you ignore any evidence presented in the context.

The bottom line in this discussion is that you seem to think that when you say that free will is implicit in the definition of the word "without excuse" that you are able to make up some axiomatic truth. You seem to feel that you need not quote any other authority then yourself.

There is no circular reasoning on my part. I am just doing straightforward exegesis in the passage, you are not. You are importing concepts foreign to the context.

I know you feel strongly about free will. But it is simply not in Romans 1:20. Free will is a concept that you are bringing into the text (isogesis) and not taking from the text (exegesis).

I could make precisely the same accusation to you, but I won't because it would be unfair. You say that "free will" is not bundled into being "without excuse". Well, I could claim that "lack of freedom" is a concept that you have imported into the notion of being "in slavery". [/quote]

What would your counterargument to this be? Presumably you will say that "absence of freedom is entailed by the concept of slavery" and would appeal to the social contract by which we all agree that, indeed, slaves do not have freedom. And you would be right to do so.

I am doing precisely the same thing in respect to the notion of being "without excuse" - I appeal to the meaning of the concept, as universally held by people. And people universally hold that to be "without excuse" is to be in a state that you had the freedom to avoid being in.

Consciously or not, you read Scriptural statements that imply no free will, and, in the process of reading the words in those statement, you confer meaning based on the societally agreed meaning of the word. Otherwise you would get nowhere.

You cannot then deny me the same right. I read "without excuse" in Romans 1:20 and appeal to the universally held notion that free will is implied. [/quote]

Quite honestly, your appeal to a definition of without excuse based upon an axiomatic truth is simply not an axiomatic truth.

You read "slave" in Romans 6 and do the exact same thing in respect to the concept of being a slave.

To the extent of my knowledge I did not comment on Romans 6 on this bulletin board yet. I did ask if you wanted my comments, but I did not see that you were interested. As of yet, I did not comment. do you wish my comments on Romans 6?

The reader will know that your statement "Free will is a concept that you are bringing into the text (isogesis)" can be echoed back at you thus in respect to stuff in Romans 6 "Absence of Free will is a concept that you are bringing into the text that says we were slaves to sin (isogesis).

Without getting into detail, yes, I think slavery and freedom are antithetical concepts. I have not yet commented on Romans 6, this is words you put into my mouth so to speak, but it would be true that I think slavery and freedom are antithetical concepts. How much do you wish me to speak to that issue?

I agree that the concept of free will is not explicitly present in "without excuse"

You have to agree that the concept of "lack of freedom" is not explictly present in the concept of being "in slavery".

Do you wish me to go to the work of looking up the word "doulos" (bond slave) in a lexicon? Or is all your definitions for words axiomatic truths? In that case, should we not throw out all grammatical, linguistic, and lexical studies?

Drew, it seems to me that we are very very far apart. There is no basis of authority that we can agree upon even to define a greek word. You reject all exegetical and lexical tools, and I am certainly not willing to accept you as the authority to define all axiomatic truths. No matter what evidence I would present in lexical studies, you claim to have automatic axiomatic knowledge of greek vocabulary and are not interested in doing exogesis. This results in true isogesis on your part. You can make anything up and import it into the meaning of any word.