• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Did God Cause the Fall?

When God test us, it is also a temptation to be disobedient and sin, you are making a “straw man†by suggesting a difference. If you read this article which I seriously doubt, you will better understand the true meaning of “foreknew’ in respect to God’s usage.
Bubba

John Piper wrote:

For Those Whom He Foreknew"
“Verse 29: "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son." What does "foreknew" mean? Some have taken it to mean that God simply foresees who will believe on him and these are the ones he predestines to be like Jesus. But this assumes two things that are not true. One is that the faith God foresees is ultimately and decisively our work, not his work. In other words, the point of this interpretation is that God does not cause our faith, he only foresees the faith which we cause.
Now this is not what the Bible teaches, not elsewhere (Philippians 1:29; Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; Matthew 16:17), nor here in the context. When Paul says in Romans 8:30, "Those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified," he means all the called are justified. But to be justified we must believe (Romans 5:1). So he is saying all those who are called believe and are justified. But how can he say ALL who are called believe? The reason, as I tried to show in the exposition of "called" in verse 28, is that the call is the powerful work of God to bring about what he demands. It's an effective call. It's a call that creates what it commands. It's a call like "Lazarus, come forth!" and the dead man lives. So the point is, believing for justification is not some thing I do on my own. God enables me. God empowers me. I must do it. Believing is something I do. But my doing is a gift of God. I do not take ultimate credit for it. I thank God for it. I am saved by sovereign grace from first to last.
So it is wrong to assume that when Romans 8:29 says, "God foreknew" some, it means he simply foresaw that they would believe by their own power. He gave that power, and so some something more is going on here than the mere foreseeing of what we do.
Here's the other mistaken assumption of this view. It assumes that the meaning of "foreknowing" is not the meaning it has in many Old and New Testament texts that would give a more coherent meaning to this passage. Listen to these uses of "know" and ask yourself what each means. In Genesis 18:19 God says of Abraham, "I have known him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord." Virtually all the English versions translate this, "I have chosen him." In Amos 3:2 God says to the people of Israel, "You only have I known among all the families of the earth." He knew about all the families, but only chose Israel. In Matthew 7:23 Jesus said to the hypocrites at the judgment day, "I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." Psalm 1:6 says, "The Lord knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wicked will perish." He knows about the way of the wicked too. But he knows the way of the righteous in the sense of approving and recognizing and loving. In Hosea 13:5 God says to Israel, "I knew you in the wilderness, In the land of drought," meaning he took note of your plight and cared for you. And Genesis 4:1 says, "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain." That is, he made her his, and knew her intimately and loved her.
Because of all those texts I think John Stott and John Murray are exactly right when both of them say, ""Know' . . . is used in a sense practically synonymous with "love' . . . "Whom he foreknow' . . . is therefore virtually equivalent to "whom he foreloved.'" Foreknowledge, is "sovereign , distinguishing love" (John Stott, quoting Murray, Romans, p. 249). It's virtually the same as set your affection on and choose for your own.
So the meaning of the first act of God in Romans 8:29 is that God foreknows his own people in the sense that he chooses them and loves them and cares for them. Paul will speak of this later in the language of "choosing" or "election" (Romans 8:33; 9:11; 11:5,7).
All things will work together for your good if you are called, and love God, because, as verse 29 says, God has known you, and chosen you, and loved you, from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4f; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelatin 13:8; 17:8)â€Â
 
follower of Christ said:
Benoni said:
James 1:13-15; this verse is your last ray of hope to prove your un-provable dogma.
what a hoot.
You twist, distort and manipulate Gods CLEAR word and then talk about 'unprovable'... :screwloose
You reject Romans 8:20 and Ps 90 on the grounds you cannot agree with theses valid Bible verse;
I reject YOUR misunderstanding of those passages that they supposedly say that GOD caused Adam to fall..which AGAIN is the TOPIC of THIS THREAD

[quote:2kzj4sas] you give no scriptural reason why you reject them;
Sure I have...
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
But each one is tempted by his own lusts, being drawn away and being seduced by them. Then lust, when it conceives, gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
(Jas 1:13-15 )
you reject them because you do not like what they say;
As you dont like what James CLEARLY states and so have to twist it into something other than what it is.

We have discussed James 1:13-15 many times and many ways and frankly I see no reason to discuss it any more.
We will discuss it as long as it remains relevant.
GOD did NOT cause Adam to sin.
Adam CHOSE to sin being lead into temptation by HIS OWN lusts.
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
But each one is tempted by his own lusts, being drawn away and being seduced by them. Then lust, when it conceives, gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
(Jas 1:13-15 )

We have explained God is sovereign and Satan is not.
God IS sovereign.
So much so that He can GIVE man FREE WILL and it is NO threat to His sovereignty.
Your god has to have complete control and micromanage or he might lose control of his creation.

You reject the verses in God’s Word on Satan;
I reject YOUR misrepresentation of them.
James 1:13 has says little except God does not tempt us; that we agree on but this verse has nothing to do with God causing the fall and everything to do with temptation now; it is Satan who tempts us; but no you cannot except God controlling good and evil because of your opinion not God’s Word.
James shows us CLEAR proof that your fallacy is unscriptural.
GOD is not the source of mans sin....MAN is.


irrelevance snipped...[/quote:2kzj4sas]

We have already discussed James. The problem here is far deeper then this verse you hold on too. You have no argument, you try to pull something out of James to force God's Word to comply how you see but all you have is wood hay and stubble. Let go of your religion and let God's spiritual Word Lead and guide you instead of the doctrine of traditions; or creed or dogma.


Colossians 2:8
you are a religous man not spiritual; religious man is so caught up with the traditions and creeds and dogmas there is no room for divine truth. It is like a vessel full of old wine; there is no room for the new wine of the spirit.

Your whole approach to the Bible is totally wrong this is obviously by the fact you cannot receive the new wine of the spirit or the revelation of God’s Word. His spiritual Word has always been their but men like your self know and understand only the letter that killeth. You sit and discuss all the belief you have been taught though out the ages from one generation to another and hang on to these beliefs as if they were the truth; but in actually all you have created is a dogma or creed that hold little truth, When some out side of that nest tries to show you something wrong using God’s Word you cannot receive it. Just like the Jews during Jesus day the same pattern continues by religious men; that is why so many verses in God’s do not fit in your warn out wine skin. God’s Word is a progressive Word, a spiritual Word it flows and grows like the old hymn “There is a River that flows from deep with inâ€Â

Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
 
You label your self follower of Christ; do you know what that means? I know you know Christ means anointing; my point our you follow what Christ or what anointing. Again forget creeds and doctrines what does God’s Spiritual Word say about Christ or the anointed ?

David was anointed by God long before he was king; David was a man who wrote thousands of psalms that are used to inspire so many awesome sermons as well as songs sung in churches all though out the world through many generations since they were written; and you say David was not converted? All you are doing is trying to bring David’s relationship with God down to your limited view of salvation.

The Ark of God was at David’s home, in a tent on His porch; this was not the normal tradition. What was normal was the High Priest once a year entered the Holy of Holies and no man or priest or King had such immanent excess to the presence of God as David.

David was king; He was God’s anointed King; not like Saul who was also anointed by God; but chosen by the people; like many ministries in the church (little c) realm today. David was one of those special people God called, anointed and was anointed as child. Today’s ministry is chosen by men. I have found men of God that I know anointed by the deepness of their understanding not because they have been voted in or out by some church committee. David walked for many years and knew He had an anointing; but he kept it to himself and understood that Saul was God’s anointed; that is until the appointed time. I think we are better off to wait for God to anoint God’s chosen vessel then to anoint our own. Also let us not forget Solomon who was also anointed of God; but because of his marring and turning his heart to false idols he became corrupt. Reminds me of all the different religions out there that man has married into; there is only one way; Christ with in.
 
Benoni said:
You label your self follower of Christ; do you know what that means?
I know you know Christ means anointing; my point our you follow what Christ or what anointing. Again forget creeds and doctrines what does God’s Spiritual Word say about Christ or the anointed ?
Irrelevant.
THIS THREAD topic is Did God Cause the Fall?...not the 'anointing'...
Are you going to keep CHANGING the topic when you find you cant win this discussion ?

-irrelevance snipped-
 
Benoni said:
We have already discussed James.
No, *I* presented James and youve just tried to dismiss/chnage it because it doesnt agree with your agenda.
The problem here is far deeper then this verse you hold on too.
You mean like the ones you keep pushing that DONT say what YOU claim they say ?
You have no argument
Pretty funny coming from a guy who hasnt actualy given a single thing that SAYS what he NEEDS it to say.
, you try to pull something out of James to force God's Word to comply how you see but all you have is wood hay and stubble.
James is VERY clear....GOD isnt responsible for YOUR sin....YOU are....YOU do it, not God.

Let go of your religion and let God's spiritual Word Lead and guide you instead of the doctrine of traditions; or creed or dogma.
Ive heard this nonsense so many times in 24 years in this walk.
You want to me to listen to YOUR nonsense and ignore what Gods word SAYS.
Sorry, it isnt going to happen.
Your whole approach to the Bible is totally wrong
Please. :lol
Get a new line...

-personal attack snipped-


I hope you have something substantial here to offer so you can quit wasting my time.
 
Bubba said:
When God test us, it is also a temptation to be disobedient and sin,
God does NOT tempt us as James proves.
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
But each one[size] is tempted by his own lusts[/size], being drawn away and being seduced by them. Then lust, when it conceives, gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
(Jas 1:13-15 )
you are making a “straw man†by suggesting a difference.
laughable.
*I* am making nothing of the sort...JAMES is who your argument is with, friend.
See above...
GOD didnt cause the fall...MAN did with his CHOICE to disobey.
If you read this article which I seriously doubt, you will better understand the true meaning of “foreknew’ in respect to God’s usage.
Bubba
I know all about John Piper. He isnt worth reading.
And MY source is the BIBLE...Id dont need to read Piper to know GODS truth.
Piper is just one more person like you who is wanting me to accept HIS nonsense over GODS truth.
John Piper wrote:
uh...yeah...
Dont waste our time with John Piper gent....he's as poor a student of scripture as they come.
He says in one breath that remarriage post divorce is 'adultery' but then in the next says the person is supposed to STAY remarried if they are...ie continue living in adultery (since that is what he says remarriage is).
His doctrinal positions cant be trusted at all...completely inconsistent.
 
As far as Piper HE is the one building a strawman in that article...
Piper said:
..."In other words, the point of this interpretation is that God does not cause our faith, he only foresees the faith which we cause...

...So it is wrong to assume that when Romans 8:29 says, "God foreknew" some, it means he simply foresaw that they would believe by their own power.
NO ONE is saying that faith come from US or that anything is based on OUR 'power'.
This is nothing but a straw man fallacy Piper is using to make an argument for himself.

God foreknows who will CHOOSE to love Him when He draws them...that is GODS power and the PURPOSE of CREATING man to begin with.
God gives man FAITH...that is GODS power.
ALL Glory and ALL power are Gods.
MAN is simply given the meager ability of CHOICE....which AGAIN is a product of GODS power...the GOD given ability of FREEDOM to CHOOSE .

Pipers views are unscriptural...
 
Bubba said:
So the meaning of the first act of God in Romans 8:29 is that God foreknows his own people in the sense that he chooses them and loves them and cares for them. Paul will speak of this later in the language of "choosing" or "election" (Romans 8:33; 9:11; 11:5,7).
I think that Paul is thinking of something entirely different in Romans 9 to 11 (I am drawing the inference that you think that 9 to 11 contains a statement of a general doctrine of election of individuals to an ultimte destiny). Yes, he speaks of "election" and yes, he speaks of the matter of ultimate destiny. But Romans 9 - 11 is not a context where Paul can credibly insert a treatment of the abstract doctrine of the election of some to loss and some to heaven.

Romans 9 to 11 is about Israel and how God can be seen to be faithful to the covenant even though many Jews have rejected the gospel. Paul's basic point is, I suggest, this: God has hardened (most Jews) unto destuction, in order to make salvation available to the whole world.

There are a lot of subtleties here that I cannot address in one thread. But I will assert that Romans 9 to 11 can be legitimately read without concluding that God has pre-destined any specific persons to an ultimate destiny.
 
Drew said:
Romans 9 to 11 is about Israel and how God can be seen to be faithful to the covenant even though many Jews have rejected the gospel. Paul's basic point is, I suggest, this: God has hardened (most Jews) unto destuction, in order to make salvation available to the whole world.
Agreed.
They provoked Him...He didnt CAUSE them to choose to do so.
And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.
They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.
(Deuteronomy 32:19-21 KJV)

There are a lot of subtleties here that I cannot address in one thread. But I will assert that Romans 9 to 11 can be legitimately read without concluding that God has pre-destined any specific persons to an ultimate destiny.
I think many times men have a knack for not seeing the forest for the trees.
Those chapters can be very confusing, but when one verse or even a few, are ripped out of context they certainly can be used to teach an error.
Paul makes it VERY clear that his topic is Israel..and the state she is in.
 
follower of Christ said:
As far as Piper HE is the one building a strawman in that article...
Piper said:
..."In other words, the point of this interpretation is that God does not cause our faith, he only foresees the faith which we cause...

...So it is wrong to assume that when Romans 8:29 says, "God foreknew" some, it means he simply foresaw that they would believe by their own power.
NO ONE is saying that faith come from US or that anything is based on OUR 'power'.
This is nothing but a straw man fallacy Piper is using to make an argument for himself.

God foreknows who will CHOOSE to love Him when He draws them...that is GODS power and the PURPOSE of CREATING man to begin with.
God gives man FAITH...that is GODS power.
ALL Glory and ALL power are Gods.
MAN is simply given the meager ability of CHOICE....which AGAIN is a product of GODS power...the GOD given ability of FREEDOM to CHOOSE .

Pipers views are unscriptural...
Does anyone else think there is some inconsistent thinking going on? Specifically....

God foreknows who will CHOOSE to love Him....(Snip).....God gives man FAITH
 
mondar said:
follower of Christ said:
As far as Piper HE is the one building a strawman in that article...
Piper said:
..."In other words, the point of this interpretation is that God does not cause our faith, he only foresees the faith which we cause...

...So it is wrong to assume that when Romans 8:29 says, "God foreknew" some, it means he simply foresaw that they would believe by their own power.
NO ONE is saying that faith come from US or that anything is based on OUR 'power'.
This is nothing but a straw man fallacy Piper is using to make an argument for himself.

God foreknows who will CHOOSE to love Him when He draws them...that is GODS power and the PURPOSE of CREATING man to begin with.
God gives man FAITH...that is GODS power.
ALL Glory and ALL power are Gods.
MAN is simply given the meager ability of CHOICE....which AGAIN is a product of GODS power...the GOD given ability of FREEDOM to CHOOSE .

Pipers views are unscriptural...
Does anyone else think there is some inconsistent thinking going on? Specifically....

God foreknows who will CHOOSE to love Him....(Snip).....God gives man FAITH
Some people you can debate with, and then there our others who debate with themselves.
 
mondar said:
Does anyone else think there is some inconsistent thinking going on? Specifically....

God foreknows who will CHOOSE to love Him....(Snip).....God gives man FAITH
Uh....yeah.
And that would also mean that Romans is 'inconsistent' when Paul says that those who God FOREKNEW He ALSO PREDESTINATED to be conformed to the likeness of His Son....
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
(Romans 8:29 KJV)
If God can FOREKNOW and THEN PREdestinate to be conformed then that would INCLUDE His giving faith to these whom He has foreknown and predestinated
Its not brain surgery here...ya know ? :)
 
Benoni said:
Some people you can debate with, and then there our others who debate with themselves.
You mean like a couple of you here and this John Piper chap...of whom all three cant seem to get their facts straight ?
 
follower of Christ said:
mondar said:
Does anyone else think there is some inconsistent thinking going on? Specifically....

God foreknows who will CHOOSE to love Him....(Snip).....God gives man FAITH
Uh....yeah.
And that would also mean that Romans is 'inconsistent' when Paul says that those who God FOREKNEW He ALSO PREDESTINATED to be conformed to the likeness of His Son....
[quote:3hfecvng]For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
(Romans 8:29 KJV)
If God can FOREKNOW and THEN PREdestinate to be conformed then that would INCLUDE His giving faith to these whom He has foreknown and predestinated
Its not brain surgery here...ya know ? :)[/quote:3hfecvng]
I would agree God gives faith, but you seem to be saying that God gives faith to those who choose him. Would that not be kind of like a bank lending you money after the debt is already paid?
 
mondar said:
I would agree God gives faith, but you seem to be saying that God gives faith to those who choose him.
So you think God gives faith to those who hate Him then ?

Would that not be kind of like a bank lending you money after the debt is already paid?
It would be like an omnipotent God foreknowing who would react positively to His drawing and so working all things together for their good...including give them faith.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
(Romans 8:29 KJV)
 
follower of Christ said:
mondar said:
I would agree God gives faith, but you seem to be saying that God gives faith to those who choose him.
So you think God gives faith to those who hate Him then?
Yup

Eph 2:3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:
and what happened when we were children of wrath and hated God?
Eph 2:4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),
When did he do this? He did this ... "when we were dead through our trespasses

We were once slaves to our sin natures (Romans 6), and incapable of faith (John 6:44--"No man can come to me"

follower of Christ said:
Would that not be kind of like a bank lending you money after the debt is already paid?
It would be like an omnipotent God foreknowing who would react positively to His drawing and so working all things together for their good...including give them faith.

[quote:3heclh42]For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
(Romans 8:29 KJV)
[/quote:3heclh42]
Nowhere in the scriptures does the word "ÀÃÂοεγνÉ" ever refer to preknowledge of an event or a decision, but it refers to foreknowledge of a person.
 
mondar said:
follower of Christ said:
mondar said:
I would agree God gives faith, but you seem to be saying that God gives faith to those who choose him.
So you think God gives faith to those who hate Him then?
Yup

Eph 2:3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:
and what happened when we were children of wrath and hated God?
Eph 2:4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),
When did he do this? He did this ... "when we were dead through our trespasses

We were once slaves to our sin natures (Romans 6), and incapable of faith (John 6:44--"No man can come to me"
I think you're really stretching the intent of those passages.
God FOREKNOWING WHO would come to Him of course would work BEFOREHAND in THOSE persons so that they could have faith.
Those who have CHOSEN when drawn to hate Him are hardly those whom He would give faith to.
You seem to believe that God DOESNT foreknow what mans response will be to Him.
If He didnt FOREKNOW mans REACTION then NOTHING would have been done from the foundation of the world as scripture teaches.
Or are you one of those likethese other folks who seems to believe that God is so feeble that He has to micromanage every detail so nothing gets out of His realm of control ?

Nowhere in the scriptures does the word "ÀÃÂοεγνÉ" ever refer to preknowledge of an event or a decision, but it refers to foreknowledge of a person.
Thats pretty funny.
I think we are TALKING ABOUT Foreknowledge of the person here... (wink, wink) ;)

And I'd say that scripture is FILLED with PROOF that God PREknows...
Or are you arguing against that as well?
 
mondar said:
Eph 2:3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:
Despite widespread belief to the contrary, this text does not need to be read as asserting that we are born with a nature that "hates" God.

Consider the phrase "by nature" as per this from Ephesians 2.

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

When we read this as 21st century westerners, we think that when the phrase “by nature†is used, a statement is being made about our fundamental constitution. On such a reading, and noting the content of verse 1, it might indeed appear that Paul is saying that it is impossible for us to respond freely to God’s grace. After all, it is in the very nature of our mind to reject anything from God.

But there is precedent for Paul using the term "by nature" to really say "by birth".

Here is an example, Galations 2:15:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

And the Greek word rendered as "by nature" is the same word as used in a clearly "by birth" sense in Galatians 2:15.

Ephesians 2:3 reads perfectly well with a "by birth" reading. And being "children of wrath" by birth in no way rules out a free will response to God in the way that being "children of wrath" by fundamental inner constitution indeed might.

So, unless and until the ambiguity of what Paul means by the phrase "by nature" is resolved Ephesians 2:1-3 does not support the notion that we cannot freely accept a gift of grace.
 
Drew said:
mondar said:
Eph 2:3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:
Despite widespread belief to the contrary, this text does not need to be read as asserting that we are born with a nature that "hates" God.
Yes it does.

Drew said:
Consider the phrase "by nature" as per this from Ephesians 2.

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

When we read this as 21st century westerners, we think that when the phrase “by nature†is used, a statement is being made about our fundamental constitution. On such a reading, and noting the content of verse 1, it might indeed appear that Paul is saying that it is impossible for us to respond freely to God’s grace. After all, it is in the very nature of our mind to reject anything from God.
Yup, that is exactly what Paul is saying.

Drew said:
But there is precedent for Paul using the term "by nature" to really say "by birth".

Here is an example, Galations 2:15:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

And the Greek word rendered as "by nature" is the same word as used in a clearly "by birth" sense in Galatians 2:15.
Actually, this the word "by nature" is still used. There is a word for "by birth" in greek, and that word is not used here either. Paul was saying to Peter that the Jew is more moral by long practice of morality... so much so that it was nature to the Jew not to be degraded by gentile practices. That is kind of insulting to we Gentiles ehh?

Drew said:
Ephesians 2:3 reads perfectly well with a "by birth" reading. And being "children of wrath" by birth....
Yeah, we were born "in Adam" and it is called original sin. That is why we have depraved natures.

Drew said:
in no way rules out a free will response to God in the way that being "children of wrath" by fundamental inner constitution indeed might.
"fundamental inner constitution" as a definition misses the point completely and is a straw man. Sheesh, dont just make stuff up weird stuff off the top of your head and suggest that this is what others are saying. I suspect you create these straw men because you cannot do actual exegesis. I challenge you to point to one person anywhere that says that the word means "fundamental inner constitution." That challenge should show that you are not actually doing any serious thinking about the text. Be real here.

Drew said:
So, unless and until the ambiguity of what Paul means by the phrase "by nature" is resolved Ephesians 2:1-3 does not support the notion that we cannot freely accept a gift of grace.
There is no ambiguity, and the notion that we cannot accept a free gift of grace is found not only here, but elsewhere.

John 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.
John 1:13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;


Drew, even if Galatians had a different meaning then Ephesians....it is improper exegesis to take a word that has a semantic range, find the meaning in one context and read it back into the other context.

Here are some other verses with the word in it...
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 11:21 for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee.
Rom 11:24 For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
The in this verse is used twice.
1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
Gal 4:8 Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods:
This one would have some interesting theology if we think of gods that are not gods by birth. No, it is easier to think of the false gods as not being by nature true gods.
Rom 2:14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;

One of the things that I notice is that the word seems to be translated "nature" quite often. Where did anyone translate it "birth?" Can you show me one time? To quote a grammatical authority who would agree with me against you, I would quote Thayer's lexicon (published by Zondervan) quotes this exact passage and says "by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God, Eph. ii. 3 (this is evident from the preceding context, and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought in Christ by blessing of divine grace."

Thayer speaks of the word nature as referring to "depraved nature," not depraved birth. This fits exactly with the context. Verse 1 speaks of how "dead" we are in sins and trespasses. We are not just sick, and can still respond to God, we are dead. That deadness in verse 1 is the reason we are by nature children of wrath in verse 3. Of course the word "dead" in verse 1 is the same word as found in Romans 5. Sin entered the world through Adam, and death spread through sin.

Now, let me guess who you want me to believe.... men who spent their lifetimes studying the greek language, or you, a person who knows nothing about the language. You cannot even give me the present active indicitive 2 sing of the verb luo. (Hint--look in a baby greek grammar book at the first lesson on verbs--) Yet your telling everyone that there is subtle nuances to the language that the professional translaters overlooked. Oh well, I know that you need your tradition in Ephesians 2 to support you justification by works theory of Romans.
 
And thats all nice and well but it doesnt show that GOD caused the fall ;)
 
Back
Top