Free will or no free will?

[Drew]

I see us as currently discussing two things. First, we were discussing the semantic range of the word "justification" in any context. While at first, you seemed to be denying that forensic justification was anywhere near the semantic domain of the meaning of the term, now you seem to be allowing it to be within the semantic range of the meaning of the term "to justify."

I agree - I think that justification sometimes means "forensic" justification, but that Paul uses the concept of forensic justification essentially as a metaphor - as a way of exlplaining the more fundamental covenantal sense of justification - a sense in which "justification" entails being declared a member of God's covenant.

Now I see your assertions to be that the primary meaning of the term involves some nebulous concept of covenant justification. You seem to be saying this is true even when I can prove by the context that forensic justification is the issue.

First, the concept of covenantal justification is not nebulous. As I have just written above, covenantal justification consists in the declaration that one is in God's covenant family (and therefore get the range of covenantal blessings).

Second, showing that, in a particular context, that Paul is using the term forensically does not undermine my assertion that he is using it in a metaphorical sense - that it is a way to express what is, more fundamentally a covenantal term.

I am asking for two kinds of evidence.

1st, above you are correct. I am asking for evidence that there is non-literal language (or metaphorical language). You seem to be asserting that there is non-literal language when the term "to justify" is used. Now I certainly agree that metaphorical, symbolic, or non-literal langauge is often used in the scriptures. Yet the non-literal use of any term should be demonstrated to be appropriate by evidence from the context that the term is to be understood in a metaphorical or non-literal way.

I think I will delay attempting to answer this question, which I think is the toughest of your questions, until after addressing your second request.

2nd, I was also asking for some hard evidence that I should see the term justification has having a "primary" definition related to a covenant. When you point to another word a half of dozen verses later (circumcision) that is not hard evidence.

I will answer your question in a later post but do not agree with your terms of what counts as evidence or not. If someone writes about "justification", follows it with a "therefore" statement, and then writes a lot of stuff that makes much more sense if he sees justification as primarily covenantal than if he sees it as primarily a forensice term, then this is indeed valid evidence that the writer has a covenantal sense of justification in mind. Indeed, much of my argument will be of the form that you seem to reject. I will claim that Paul has said before and after a reference to justification is evidence that he is understanding justification in a covenantal sense.

This is an entirely legitimate line of argument if the debate is being conducted properly - not making any a priori assumption that the term "justification" means "forensic justification". You may not fall into this category, but there will be those who say to themselves the following:

"Justification is a forensic term, by the very meaning of the term" so even if Paul follows a reference to justification with covenantal talk, this is does not change the fundamental fact that justification is a forensic term and so we conclude that Paul is moving on from his forensic use of the term to some discussion of the covenant that, whatever else it does, does not have the magical power to change the word "justification" from its inherent forensic sense."

That would be a massively question-begging approach and is not correct reasoning.

Now if you pointed to the term justification in a context in which a covenant is being cut, or the stipulations of the covenant are being listed, that would be different. Drew, I understand you to be thinking you have presented evidence. From my side of the screen, I see a lot of assertions, but little to no evidence. You did attempt to pick a few words in the context (I called that word association) but you did not lay out the argumentation of any context to demonstrate that the meaning of the term "justify" has to be understood in the covenantal sense.

Again, I think you are being unfairly narrow in the terms in which you want to conduct this debate. It is true, for example, that in Romans 9 and first bit of 10, the term "covenant" is only mentioned at the beginning. Yet, I cannot understand how it is that people do not see that Paul is retelling the entire covenant history there. It proceeds from Abraham to Isaac, to Moses, and onward from there. An even better example is entire sweep from Roman 3:1 to 4:25 - I believe the covenant is never explicitly mentioned there - but there is oodles of evidence that Paul is addressing God's faithfulness to his covenant in that passage. Perhaps this is the passage that I will focus on in a later to make the case that "justification" is primarily a covenantal term.

Neither you and I get to set the terms of what constitutes a compelling argument. I "admit" that Paul does not make explicit references to the covenant all that many times in Romans (although there are exceptions). I still think, and am happy to argue that covenantal theology is there bubbling under the surface.

Let the reader judge the quality of those arguments on their own terms.

I suspect that you will not accept a focus on the Jew-Gentile distinction (as in Romans 3) as evidence that Paul is thinking covenantally. Well that is your right.

More shortly.

 

[mondar]

..... I "admit" that Paul does not make explicit references to the covenant all that many times in Romans (although there are exceptions). I still think, and am happy to argue that covenantal theology is there bubbling under the surface.

Exactly what are you saying here? You seem to admit that references to covenant are not "explicit." If they are implicit, is that not approaching the text with a pre-supposition? Is that not isogesis?

Let the reader judge the quality of those arguments on their own terms.

I suspect that you will not accept a focus on the Jew-Gentile distinction (as in Romans 3) as evidence that Paul is thinking covenantally. Well that is your right.

More shortly.

You might want to elaborate on what you mean by the term "distinction." Do you mean that Romans 3 is about how the Jews and Gentiles are distinct? The passage is about how all are under sin.

I would outline Romans 3 in this way.
Vs 1-9------The Jewish failure of unbelief. In these verses it is interesting in that section that Paul does not bother to mention their failure is one of not keeping the law. Rather the failure of the Jew was unbelief.
Vs 10-20--- "There is no" (ouk esti). It is noticable that these words begin 6 lines of the greek. The section can be summed up by the words "We are all rebels under sin." Verse 20 ends a section that began in 1:18.... "The unrighteousness of men."
Vs 21-30--- The righteousness of God is through faith. Verse 22 makes it clear that there is no "distinction." We all come by faith.

In 21-30, there is some important theology. It begins with the term "propitiation."
Rom 3:25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;
A propitiation is "the gift that turns away wrath." The common illustration of the etymology of the term goes back to the ark of the covenant being sprinkled with blood, and this turned away the wrath of God. The question is how is the wrath of God turned away. The passage makes it clear that "in his blood" or the blood of Jesus Christ is that which turns away Gods wrath. Of course if this propitiation is not by our works, or even includes any of our works, even works done by the HS in us. It is only by the blood of Jesus Christ. Only Christs shed blood turns away Gods wrath. Now there is an issue of atonement here. Of course some are universalists and believe this propitiation applies to all men everywhere. Calvinist as myself believe that this propitiation is for the elect. Arminians and Pelagians do not believe Christs blood actually turns away wrath. Rather then believe that there is a theoretical possibility that it possibly might turn away wrath dependent upon what we do with our sovereign human free will.

The "passing over" is mentioned. The "passing over" does not refer to we who live after Christs death, it speaks of those before Christs death. They were sinners who deserved only the wrath of God, and God passed over their sin until Christ shed his blood. That is the "passing over" on the basis of Gods "forbearance."

All this leads to justification. And of course the context only requires faith. I invite the reader to count the number of times the context mentions the word "faith."

Rom 3:21 But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Rom 3:22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction;
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith.
Rom 3:28 We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
Rom 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yea, of Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 if so be that God is one, and he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. Rom 3:31 Do we then make the law of none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, we establish the law.

Now why do you think we Calvinists have this term "sola fide?" When the scriptures say over and over and over and over that justification is by faith, should you not look carefully at any reference that says it is by works? Now Romans 2:13 speaks of "hearers of the Law." What Law are they hearing? Now Drew, my guess is that you will continue to ignore that question. And that is your right to believe as you choose. My guess is you will simply make the assertion that this cannot be the mosaic Law. Soon in verse 17 Paul will write that his readers "bear the name Jew." But it still cannot be the Mosaic Law? In verse 17 Paul will again use the term "Law." Is that the Mosaic Law, or will you also say this cannot be the Mosiac Law either. In 2:23 Paul says that someone boasts in the Law. This cannot be the Jew boasting in the Mosaic Law? They did not break the Mosaic Law? If you admit that in verse 13 the Jew is the hearers of the Law, then should you not admit that the Jew can be justified by that same Mosaic Law? On what contextual basis can you claim that Romans 2:13 is not referring to the Mosaic Law?

Well, I am tired, and rambling some. Time for bed.

 

[Bubba]

Mondar,
What answer do you give to those like the RCC, who try and make Romans 2:15 in answer to those who never hear the gospel but are saved through conscience? I believe all of Romans 2 is speaking to both Jew and Gentile being without excuse and in need of a Saviour.
Bubba

 

[Drew]

..... I "admit" that Paul does not make explicit references to the covenant all that many times in Romans (although there are exceptions). I still think, and am happy to argue that covenantal theology is there bubbling under the surface.

Exactly what are you saying here? You seem to admit that references to covenant are not "explicit." If they are implicit, is that not approaching the text with a pre-supposition? Is that not isogesis?

Absolutely not. And here we hop out of the realm of theology in particular and get to fundamental questions about the nature of how we communicate with one another.

The fact that, in this case, that Paul does not make all that many explicit references to the covenant (say, in Romans), is only initiallya reason to suspect a covenantal focus in Romans. If we discover, through reasonable and valid inference, that he has the covenant centrally in mind, we can still legitimately - that is non "isogetically" - deduce a covenantal focus.

In more simplistic terms - you cannot, legitimately anyway, argue that that infrequent explicit reference to the covenant does not mean the covenant is on Paul's mind. Perhaps the covenant was so close to the Jewish mind that the covenant would almost be the "default" way of looking at things, and no reader would need to be reminded of it.

But this is really beside the point and should not be used to draw an an "Aha - Drew is admitting that Romans is not about the covenant" conclusion. If, as I intend to show in later posts, there is implicit evidence that the covenant is deeply woven into Romans through and through, infrequent explicit references become inconsequential, and perhaps reflect simply a style issue on Paul's part.

In short, there is no "rule" that says that Paul must make repeated explicit assertions that he is talking about "X" when he is indeed talking about "X". I agree that the absence of frequent references to the covenant should make us initially suspicious as to whether Paul has this is in mind.

But there are many arguments (some already presented, but most not) that the covenant is central in Paul's mind, at least in the book of Romans.

An isogetical pre-supposition would be to come to the text already believing that Paul is focused on the covenant. I have not done this, having spent decades believing otherwise. And if the reader does not believe me, let him or her consider the arguments I have made and plan to make about how Paul indeed is focused on the covenant. The arguments are what they are and will never appeal to a "pre-supposition" of any kind. Or if they do, the astute reader can point that out.

 

[mondar]

Drew,
It seems to me we have a fundamental difference in the way we approach the text. When I speak of a context I am referring to the grammar and syntax of sentences. Did you ever diagram sentences? The sentence is the basic carrier of meaning. Then from sentences you build paragraphs. Of course this can change in certain literary forms. I recognize poetic devises are used in come contexts, narrative themes are used to communicate theology, and I recognize literary devices. On the other hand, it still seems to me that you seem to be suggesting that we approach the text with a covenantal presupposition. I am expecting to see you demonstrate this in a text by showing that some sentence is talking about a covenantal issue. You keep asserting that it is there and that the words and sentences do not need to have covenantal meaning. You seem to be asserting that because of the associatio of a few words, this presupposition of covenant community is mandated.

So therefore, I ask for evidence, and feel you are offering none. You dont feel you need to offer any such evidence as I am looking for.

I feel justified in asking for the evidence because in the normal literal reading of any literature, we take meaning from sentences and paragraphs and literary devices as i am suggesting. You have used langauge like "metaphor" in your posts. You speak of a covenant community in the text but do not demonstrate it by the langauge of the text but merely appeal to individual words. I dont see that this is exegesis at all.

What do you mean by the term "metaphor?" Is this an approach like Origon? Or something in that direction?

I really think we have a basic methodological and possibly a hermeneutical issue. What do you think?

 

[Drew]

One last thing, I still think you are dodging a question in Romans 2:12-13. That context specificly uses the term "law." What law is it talking about if not the Mosaic Law? Please present evidence from the context of Romans 2 that the term "Law" means.

I am not "dodging" this question - as you are no doubt aware, each of us is a posing a lot of challenges for the other to respond to, and time is not unlimited.

Here is the text as per the NASB:

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

I suspect that you will not like my answer, but it is this. In verse 12, Paul is talking about the Mosaic Law or Torah as normally understood by a 1st century Jew or Gentile - the set of laws and practices that served largely as an ethnic charter for the Jews. He is asserting that Gentiles who have "sinned" (in a sense I will get to at the end) without being under Torah will perish as will the Jew who has sinned (in this same sense) even though he is under Torah.

Now, in the last half at least of verse 13, Paul means something entirely different by "Law" than he means in verse 12. This may seem a little forced, and I cannot provide all the details in this one post. For the present, I will state that is simply incorrect to respond to this with "it is not possible that Paul could mean 2 different things by the same word, especially in 2 consecutive sentences".

It is indeed possible and not without analogy in our world. I could say something like "I disobeyed the letter of the law but obeyed its spirit". Granted, I have used the qualifiers "letter of" and "spirit of" the make this distinction clear. And Paul does not add such qualfiers, but I submit it is plausible that he has two senses of keeping Torah in mind here - Torah as the Jewish ethnic charter of rules and practices (as per verse 12) and a second sense as per verse 13. I will get to this second sense shortly.

Readers obviously have a "right" to dismiss my assertion about how Paul means two different things by Law in these verses and assert that this is a fanciful construct to save what they see as a shaky position. I can only ask that you at least consider the possibilty of what I am asserting since, as we will see, we know clearly, not least from Romans 9, that Paul indeed does have two senses of Torah in his mind. This is really beyond reasonable doubt. The question is: Is Paul making that same distinction in the 2:12-13 block, even though he never directly states or even hints that he is? I think he is, because if you go with that assertion, the entire thrust of Romans makes more sense and, beyond that, such a view coheres with Jesus famous statement in Matthew 22 when He summarizes the Law:

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

Now look at the text of famous "schema", from Deuteronomy 6:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Now look at Paul says at the end of Romans 3:

29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

I suggest that the ways these texts bounce off each other is not a coincidence. Paul, in the Romans 3 text, sees "love of God (and by extension, love of neighbour) as the "real" sense of keeping Torah - the "spirit of the Torah", if you will. This is the second sense of keeping Torah - the sense by which both Jew and Gentile need to follow in order to not perish.

In Romans 9, Paul makes it clear that there are 2 versions of keeping Torah. From the NASB:

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

This powerfully supports the assertion that, in contexts at least, Paul is operating with two senses of keeping Torah.

And there is even more evidence of this from later in Romans 2:

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker

The 1st century person would say "Paul, what are you talking about - you know that a person who is not circumcized is not really keeping the requirements of Torah?" (I suspect that, as in the past, mondar will dispute that circumcision is really "part of Torah - we can go back to that). Paul must be thinking in terms of a second way of keeping Torah - a way that can kept "without the written code and circumcision".

It was only a few breaths back that Paul has dictated verses 12-13. So what he says in 25-27 make it exceedingly plausible that Paul has the dual sense of Torah in mind in the 12-13 block.

 

[Drew]

Drew,
It seems to me we have a fundamental difference in the way we approach the text. When I speak of a context I am referring to the grammar and syntax of sentences. Did you ever diagram sentences? The sentence is the basic carrier of meaning. Then from sentences you build paragraphs. Of course this can change in certain literary forms. I recognize poetic devises are used in come contexts, narrative themes are used to communicate theology, and I recognize literary devices.

While I perhaps am not thinking as analytically as you are about the nature of context, I would suggest that I am employing common sense and valid notions of context. So for example, if someone writes "I have a bird in my apartment" and then immediately goes on to say "there are now copies of Cosmopolitan magazine, and lipsticks, and white wine, and dresses all over my apartment", I conclude that by "bird", the author means woman and not a small feather-covered creature with a beak. This is an example of disambiguating "bird" by context. And this is exactly how I have argued in respect to Ephesians 2. So clearly, we both need to honour context.

On the other hand, it still seems to me that you seem to be suggesting that we approach the text with a covenantal presupposition.

Absolutely not. I believe I have been quite clear - no pre-suppositions allowed either way. Tell me where I have given you reason to believe that I am pre-supposing anything over and above the possiblilty of a covenantal reading - which of coure perfectly fair and reasonable for me to do.

I am expecting to see you demonstrate this in a text by showing that some sentence is talking about a covenantal issue. You keep asserting that it is there and that the words and sentences do not need to have covenantal meaning. You seem to be asserting that because of the associatio of a few words, this presupposition of covenant community is mandated

So therefore, I ask for evidence, and feel you are offering none. You dont feel you need to offer any such evidence as I am looking for..

Not at all. I have already posted an actual argument in my post of 23 June at 10:32 AM (page 60). This is a clear argument that a covenantal reading makes better sense of the text.

I would have to be out of my mind to think that I do not need to provide evidence to support my position. My basic thinking is this: which explains the text better, a covenantal reading of "justification" or a "forensic" reading of justification. This is a perfectly legitimate approach.

I am not, and have not, made any pre-suppositions over and above the pre-supposition of the possibility of a covenantal reading. And my arguments in the referenced post does not make a pre-supposition of a covenantal reading, it only pre-supposes the possibility of such a reading.

 

[mondar]

My basic thinking is this: which explains the text better, a covenantal reading of "justification" or a "forensic" reading of justification. This is a perfectly legitimate approach.

OK, let me point to the use of the term justification in Romans. Now I admit that not every context is going to have a context that is clearly forensic. But lets look at Romans 8.

Rom 8:33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;
Rom 8:34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Verse 33 whisks the reader immediately to a courtroom setting with the Rhetorical question "who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect. I think in both British common law and judicial system of the USA have a "plaintiff." The author is asking who the plaintiff might be. Who could the plaintiff possibly be! Can any creature in heaven or earth be the plaintiff and make a legal charge if God is the one who justified? Now verse 30 says that it is God that justifies.
Rom 8:30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Verses 29-30 describe the "golden thread" of redemption. The word "he" is a pronoun that the antecedent is God. All parts of this golden chain are actions of God. So the second part of verse 33 says that if God is the one who justifies in verse 30, he cannot be the plaintiff in this "charge." The word "charge" is forensic in this context.

The concept of a "charge" is very key to the context. If this courtroom setting contained even a hint of covenantal language, this would be the place. It is the perfect place to say that we are changed with covenant violation and that this is a divine law suit. I admit that many times in the OT, the prophets charged Israel with covenant violation. An example would be:
Jer 11:8 Yet they obeyed not, nor inclined their ear, but walked every one in the stubbornness of their evil heart: therefore I brought upon them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do, but they did them not. There is no language such as "stipulation," or "covenant," or "commandment." The concept of "charge" here is completely non-specific. It is general. It can include anything, any sin, any reason. The point is, the term charge relates to forensic justification and is not a covenantal term.

Paul continues with his forensic language in this context. He asks not only who the plaintiff might be but he asks who the judge is who will pass judgment or condemnation.
Rom 8:34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
If God justified, who can judge us? Who can condemn us? If someone can condemn us, then is God really the supreme judge of the universe? There is certainly a theological problem if God justifies and someone else condemns.
There is another issue in this verse that is forensic. We have an intercessor. This is not the same term as mediator. Now I certainly am willing to admit that in Hebrews the concept of a mediator is covenantal. Hebrews has obvious covenantal terminology with regard to the new covenant. That can be obviously seen in the terminology. Read a passage like Hebrews 9:15
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Christ is here obviously the mediator of a covenant. This is not the language of Romans 8. In Romans 8 the term is intercessor not mediator. The concept of an intercessor is different. In Romans 8:26 the HS is an intercessor in our prayers.
Rom 8:26 And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered; But this is not a mediator of a covenant. In Romans 8:34 the intercessor is obviously Christ. Christ like a defense lawyer goes before the real and true judge of the universe, the Father. Christ can interceed for us and the basis is given right in the verse. Christ can intercede because of his death. Our works do not add one iota to his intercession and our justification.

In conclusion, Romans 8:33-34 use the word justification in a heavenly court room setting where we are "justified" before the divine judge. The divine judge can bang his gavel and pronounce us innocent ... why? Because we are already good enough? Certainly not. The basis of justification is the work of the divine defense attorney that can appeal on the basis of his own blood. It was not our works that turned away Gods wrath, but the very blood of the savior.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him

So can you go through a context and demonstrate covenantal concepts of justification and covenantal terminology like that?

 

[Bubba]

Freewill - does mankind have it?

......well does he, because most of mainstream Christianity and certainly those outside of Christianity thinks he does? It's one of those numerous issues that mainstream Christianity takes for granted without question. Sadly, nearly everything they believe is based on the traditions of men or the teachings of men of religion, so it's no wonder they don't understand.

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.


So does mankind have freewill? Did he ever have freewill? Did Adam and Eve have freewill? Now these are very interesting questions are they not? There are also some other questions that come out of these first questions: If Adam and Eve did have freewill, did The Godhead take bets from the angels on which way they would turn, if so where did they lay their bets off!!?? (Only joking.) Did God take a big risk and leave it all to chance or was it an accidental flaw in their creation of Adam and Eve - a calamitous mistake?? If He did take a big risk or make a big mistake we have to imagine He had plan B or even plan C that He would quickly implement, in a state of panic, as a rear guard defensive manoeuvre. Was that the case? Was the fall of Adam and Eve something that took the Godhead by surprise? Was it a grand game of pot luck or lucky dip or was it a case of: Did the Godhead 'plan to fail' for want of a better expression? Perhaps a better way of putting it would be: Did The Godhead create Adam and Eve knowing in advance and full well that they would fall at the first hurdle? In other words, did the Godhead plan it the way it happened? OK, let's see if we can answer these questions?


Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The question of freewill is answered here in this first Scripture. It's so simple I cannot understand where this idea of man's freewill came from, unless it's non-belief in the whole Bible, brought about by the "New Testament Only" people. As we can see man was not asked if he would like to be created, he was not invited to a business meeting and his opinion sought!! Believe it or not though, this is the very basis upon which many Christians build their lives as 'believers' - God needs our co-operation in order to be a success!! There is no way I can be saved unless 'I' accept Jesus Christ as my saviour, never mind John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." Look what Isaiah has to say on this matter:

Isaiah 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

We are the clay, The Lord God is the potter and we are the work of the Lord's hand, how unambiguous is that!!?? Just where does mankind's will, free or otherwise, fit in to this scenario or arrangement? As we can plainly see, it doesn't.

OK, the Garden of Eden scene is nearly complete, just one more character to add: enter the Serpent otherwise known as the Destroyer or the Author of Ruin and the Author of Lies. He is also known as the Author of Confusion, Satan, the Adversary, the Devil; so many names but with only one purpose - to destroy or wipe mankind from the face of the earth if he possibly can. Why is he like that? Easy, God made him that way. If the Godhead had already planned for Adam and Eve to fall how were they going to bring it about?


Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle (cunning or crafty) than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? There he is folks, that old serpent - the Devil whom God made. Now, should this revelation (apologies to those of you who already know this Truth) shock us? Well yes it should, if, like me in the past, you have always believed what men of religion have taught you without questioning it. Make no mistake, I came from that very same fold too, until The Lord set me free into His glorious Light and Truth and under His Grace. So yes it should shock us, but then again after a further study of His Word, shock turns to: Well I'll be.....!! How did I miss that??

By 'missing that', I mean the sons of perdition like the Pharaoh who confronted Moses and Judas Iscariot who betrayed The Lord Jesus Christ. God hardened the Pharaoh's heart not the Devil. OK the Devil played his part in leading Judas astray but that act of betrayal had to happen and someone had to do it in order for the Scriptures to be fulfilled. Notice too that Jesus Christ was prophesied to fulfil His mission before the foundation of the world.

Exodus 7:2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land. 3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Even before Adam and Eve were created The Lord was The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This means He and the Father God knew what was going to happen in the Garden of Eden before it happened. It had to happen the way it did in order that the Scriptures be fulfilled, God be glorified and Jesus Christ become the only begotten and first begotten Son of God.

OK, so if man doesn't have freewill what will does he have? Again that's easy, he has rebellious will or self will but neither of these wills are free, they're controlled and manipulated by the one who led us astray in the first place - The Serpent - Satan - The Devil. Mankind can either do God's will - but only after The Father has called him/her to His Son Jesus Christ, or Satan's will. Mankind can have no other wills but these and one will is bondage and captivity and the other is freedom from sin and death under Grace.

It's no good a human being saying "I don't believe in the Devil - it's all hogwash," as that is all part of the Devil's armoury anyway. To get people to say he doesn't exist suits him fine, and that viewpoint doesn't make him go away and leave us alone, in fact it encourages him. This world (age) is his world (age) and he is the god of it, but not for much longer.

2 Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

There we have it; mankind has no freewill other than in his vain imaginations or fantasies.

Charles Crosby

 

[francisdesales]

Freewill - does mankind have it?

...So does mankind have freewill? Did he ever have freewill? Did Adam and Eve have freewill?

Yes. Why would God command us to obey His commandments if we COULD NOT choose to do so - even WITH His aid?

Regards

 

[Drew]

The concept of a "charge" is very key to the context. If this courtroom setting contained even a hint of covenantal language, this would be the place.

A real quickie just for now.

The reader needs to be reminded that I have never denied that Paul uses the term "justify" in a forensic or courtroom sense at times - I have been very clear about this.

And the Romans 8:33 usage is clearly forensic as you point out.

But, and I cannot emphasize this enough, the overall concept of justification that Paul has in mind is primarly covenantal (I have already started to defend this assertion and plan to continue). When Paul uses the term forensically, he is indeed expressing the truth that justification has a forensic aspect or dimension.

There seems to be an implicit assumption on your (mondar's) part that Paul's concept of justification has to be either covenantal or forensic. That would be an unfair assumption if indeed you bring such an assumption to his writing. I think that Paul clearly has both senses - covenantal and forensic. And I think the evidence suggests primarily a covenantal perspective.

It is simply not true to the sophistication of the human mind, especially a well-educated Pharisee like Paul, to impose a constraint that Paul must be using the term always in the same sense. You may not be doing this, but this is worth underscoring.

So can you go through a context and demonstrate covenantal concepts of justification and covenantal terminology like that?

I have already done so, although there is a lot more material I could write! See my post of 23 June at 10:32 AM (page 60). This is a clear argument that a covenantal reading makes better sense of a certain text from Romans.

 

[Vic C.]

Freewill - does mankind have it?

...So does mankind have freewill? Did he ever have freewill? Did Adam and Eve have freewill?

Yes. Why would God command us to obey His commandments if we COULD NOT choose to do so - even WITH His aid?

Regards

It brings us right back to what we discussed on another page, Joe. Many only see "black and white" because it's all they can understand. Sure, it confounds us to believe that synergism and monergism both have their part in God's redemptive plan. Heh, what else is new? The Trinity is confounding to many; Creation confuses the multitudes; so does the concept of "sacrificial atonement". It has baffled people for thousands of years.

Free will is like water; it will often take the path of least resistance. 8-) It will often conform to what appeals to it. Man is self delusional. We are probably the only lifeform on this planet to know of it's own demise, but because of this delusion we've "created", we don't fall into a state of hopelessness over our impending death; we carry on despite of it. Our own death is something we just can't experience and live to tell about it. 8-)

Adam and Eve had no real concept of death because they've never experienced it nor witnessed it; they had no reference to rely upon. It wasn't a tangible thought. The serpent and the fruit were on the other hand, quite alluring; it was within their "grasp". They could see it, touch it and with a little deceptive push from the Adversary, they could taste it also.

Under those circumstances, free will or no free will, how many of us would choose just like they did?

 

[Bubba]

Freewill - does mankind have it?

...So does mankind have freewill? Did he ever have freewill? Did Adam and Eve have freewill?

Yes. Why would God command us to obey His commandments if we COULD NOT choose to do so - even WITH His aid?

Regards

Francisdesales,
Through the power of the Holy Sprit we are able to obey at least in part (synergistic). Yet until we are free from the enslavement of Satan (monergistic), we will never say yes to Jesus or follow His ways, except for avoiding the consequences of bad behaviors for consequence sake, not because we want to.
Grace, bubba

 

[Drew]

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The question of freewill is answered here in this first Scripture. It's so simple I cannot understand where this idea of man's freewill came from, unless it's non-belief in the whole Bible, brought about by the "New Testament Only" people. As we can see man was not asked if he would like to be created, he was not invited to a business meeting and his opinion sought!

Independent of other arguments, the text you quote in no way establishes that humans do not have freewill. It almost seems that you are arguing that since, obviously, we do not have free will in respect to our own creation, we cannot then have free will as the creatures that we are.

The idea of freewill seems necessary if we are, in any meaningful sense, to be considered creatures and not more "objects". If Fred does not have some measure of self-determining free will, then he is, in essence, no different than a rock which tumbles down the mountain-side when the forces of nature dictate. I think that the very concept of "creature" has the concept of free-will bundled into it.

And I suspect that many who do not believe in the reality of freewill will say "where do the scriptures say that?". Well, the scriptures are written in words. And words point to concepts. The Scriptures do not tell us what a "man" or an "apple" is - but they do deploy the concepts.

I think a serious flaw in the "no free will" position is that is collapses the concept of "creature" into the concept of "object".

 

[stovebolts]

The idea of freewill seems necessary if we are, in any meaningful sense, to be considered creatures and not more "objects". If Fred does not have some measure of self-determining free will, then he is, in essence, no different than a rock which tumbles down the mountain-side when the forces of nature dictate. I think that the very concept of "creature" has the concept of free-will bundled into it.

Good point Drew. C.S. Lewis put it like this,
http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot.

If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.

A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

 

[Bubba]

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The question of freewill is answered here in this first Scripture. It's so simple I cannot understand where this idea of man's freewill came from, unless it's non-belief in the whole Bible, brought about by the "New Testament Only" people. As we can see man was not asked if he would like to be created, he was not invited to a business meeting and his opinion sought!

Independent of other arguments, the text you quote in no way establishes that humans do not have freewill. It almost seems that you are arguing that since, obviously, we do not have free will in respect to our own creation, we cannot then have free will as the creatures that we are.

The idea of freewill seems necessary if we are, in any meaningful sense, to be considered creatures and not more "objects". If Fred does not have some measure of self-determining free will, then he is, in essence, no different than a rock which tumbles down the mountain-side when the forces of nature dictate. I think that the very concept of "creature" has the concept of free-will bundled into it.

And I suspect that many who do not believe in the reality of freewill will say "where do the scriptures say that?". Well, the scriptures are written in words. And words point to concepts. The Scriptures do not tell us what a "man" or an "apple" is - but they do deploy the concepts.

I think a serious flaw in the "no free will" position is that is collapses the concept of "creature" into the concept of "object".

Drew,
Several pages back I wrote this to Vic:

Vic,
You can only take a concept so far, but the point is that God alone will do the right thing, make the right decision, never sin and etc., man does not have the ability because his will is not free. Before being born again man was a slave to Satan, once born again he has the ability to do right, but still struggles with the flesh. God's will is free to always do whats right. God was free to decide the events of the earth before one thing was created and orchestrate every page of history since that miracle of creation, knowing the end at the beginning of all events that ever would be.
Now on the other hand, Vic had no chioce to whom he would be born to, or what country, or what sex or what would influence his life. Vic did not have a choice if he would be born with retardation or if he would be a genius or something in between. Vic could of been born with a terrible illness that he had no choice to be inflicted with.Vic could of been born in a Hindu culture and with no one in his family or acquaintance that even knew what Christianity consisted of, then died one second after what ever the age of accountability might be (though there is none). How free are you? Everything we have been taught, seen or experience in our small part of the universe has become a part of our make up. How blessed is the man born to Christian Parents, in a Christian culture and able to live to have good teachers and other influences beyond his control early on to the end of his life. Yes, Vic does have the volition to choose what socks he wants to wear, or what food he would like to eat for supper, only because he was not born to a impoverish single mother in Ethiopia.
Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

Freewill - does mankind have it?

...So does mankind have freewill? Did he ever have freewill? Did Adam and Eve have freewill?

Yes. Why would God command us to obey His commandments if we COULD NOT choose to do so - even WITH His aid?

Regards

It brings us right back to what we discussed on another page, Joe. Many only see "black and white" because it's all they can understand. Sure, it confounds us to believe that synergism and monergism both have their part in God's redemptive plan. Heh, what else is new? The Trinity is confounding to many; Creation confuses the multitudes; so does the concept of "sacrificial atonement". It has baffled people for thousands of years.

yea, and it continues to baffle us, including me. Rather than trying to explain God's ways, which are higher than heaven, I prefer to just accept by faith that God has given me free will and expects me to obey His commandments, an ability that I ALONE do not possess - but nonetheless, with God's help, I am given a choice and ability to do either one or the other.

Regards

 

[mondar]

There seems to be an implicit assumption on your (mondar's) part that Paul's concept of justification has to be either covenantal or forensic. That would be an unfair assumption if indeed you bring such an assumption to his writing. I think that Paul clearly has both senses - covenantal and forensic. And I think the evidence suggests primarily a covenantal perspective.

I dont see that I am assuming that the language of justification is either forensic, or covenantal. In fact I can think of scenario's in which the language would point exactly to what you are suggesting. If was saw the picture of a divine court case in which God the divine plaintiff was suing for covenant violation, that would be a perfect scenario. If I saw the such language, I would readily admit that both concepts are present in the same context. However, this is not the language I observe. Where in Romans 8:33-34 is there any covenantal language. I keep asking for an exegetical demonstration of this supposed covenant language but never seem to get any.

I have already done so, although there is a lot more material I could write! See my post of 23 June at 10:32 AM (page 60). This is a clear argument that a covenantal reading makes better sense of a certain text from Romans.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. You made posts on the 23ird of June. Some of your posts are on Page 60. None of the post you made on my screen say you made them at 10:32 AM. I honestly have no idea what you might want me to see on Page 60. I will reread it, but I saw no evidence, only assertions.

 

[mondar]

OK, I think this is the post you are referring to. My screen says it was made 22 June 2008.

Far be it from me to differ from the writer of Deuteronomy as to whether regeneration causes works, if by regeneration you means the giving of the Holy Spirit:

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it

No, regeneration is a ministry of the HS (Titus 3:5). Regeneration is the ministry where by our nature is changed from being slaves of our sin nature, to being disposed to faith in Christ and works to glorify God.

The giving of the HS has more to do with the placing of the believer in the body of Christ by "baptism" (1 Cor 12:12-13) and other ministries of the HS. But this is not the point of our discussion. If this is evidence of covenental language is "justification" passages, that is a surprise. Where are the words "to justify?"

This is a passage about what happens when God renews the covenant - check out the first part of Deuteronomy 30. And who will disagree that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus renews the covenant? Paul clearly believes precisely this when he quoted the above passage in Romans 10.

First, to use the term "covenant renewal" is an innaccurate concept of the death of Christ. If you ask "who isll disagree that the live, death, and resurrection of jesus renews the covenant," I would answer that I disagree. There is no evidence anywhere in the scripture that the shed blood of JEsus accomplishes mere covenant renewal. I would easily agree that it is a fulfillment of the stipulations of covenant, but not covenant renewal.

Now I agree Paul in Romans 10 quotes Deuteronomy 30. The earlier part of Deuteronomy 30 relates to a Covenant (some call it covenant renewal, some the Palestinian covenant). The heart language of course leads into the later New Covenant. The exact part that Paul quotes of Deuteronomy 30 does not have to do with Covenant, but with faith. Pauls point is then not about covenant. He is making no assertions about Covenant, but he asserting Israels failure because it sought God on its works (see Pauls topic sentence in 9:30). so then, in that context Paul is talking about the righteousness of God being found by faith. Notice Pauls conclusion.
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach:
What Paul is drawing from the Deuteronomy text is not a "word of covenant" but the word of faith."

I think I formerly mentioned (not sure) that in Deuteronomy 30:6 we see the concept of heart circumcision. This is the same thing as regeneration. It is how God brings faith to believers. He circumcises their hearts, or regenerates them and then they believe, and they are saved on the basis of that faith.

The point is that merely demonstrating that Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 30 does not demonstrate that there is a covenantal background to the concept of justification. In fact the word justification has been left behind in Chapter 8. Your statement are by no means an exegetical demonstration of a covenantal concept in justification.

And what are we who are in Christ given? The Spirit. Paul again from Romans 2:

No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit,

And what is the consequence of obeying the law written on our hearts by the Spirit? It is life, precisely as per Romans 2. Here is material from Romans 8 to underscore this:

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you

I hope you are not claiming this is an exegetical demonstration of your point of view? You auote Romans 2:25ff. That context begins in verse 17 speaking of those who "bear the name Jew." While there is a covenantal issue there. The issue is the failure of the Jew under that covenant. It is simply a demonstration that the Jew is also under sin. I would agree to go so far as to Say Deuteronomy 30:6 lies in the background of this text. Certainly it is not a teaching that there is a covenantal justification.

By the way, you never explained why you refuse to admit that Romans 2:13 is speaking of the Mosaic Law. You continue to ignore that question.

Also, Abraham was justified before he was ever circumcised. If Abraham had only Gods promise, and no Covenant, and he was justified, why not me? Abraham was justified by faith, and so am I.

 

[Drew]

I dont see that I am assuming that the language of justification is either forensic, or covenantal. In fact I can think of scenario's in which the language would point exactly to what you are suggesting.

OK, agreed.

If was saw the picture of a divine court case in which God the divine plaintiff was suing for covenant violation, that would be a perfect scenario. If I saw the such language, I would readily admit that both concepts are present in the same context.

True enough. But your specific take here on what covenantal expression of the term "justification" would be is not the only way that Paul could be integrating covenantal perspective with a justification perspective. There are other ways to make these two concepts work together than to have a courtroom scene where God sues for covenant violation.

One of these althernatives is one where, for Paul, the key issue is who is a member of the covenant and is therefore heir to the blessings of the covenant. With that question in mind, he then deploys a courtroom model to talk about, for example, how Jesus juridically pays the price of sin that is a necessary condition for a person to be then included in the covenant.

This is not the same kind of integration of covenantal and forensic meanings that you talk about - where the issue of violation of the covenant is settled in the courtroom. I do not deny that Paul thinks that there is a forensic sense in which people are granted entry to the covenant.

But, I assert, Paul is centrally concerned with who is in the covenant. He is not talking only about people being forensically justified with no reference to the issue of covenant membership. I suggest that Paul uses the forensic model to explain how people are admitted into the covenant, covenant membership being his primary concern.

Where in Romans 8:33-34 is there any covenantal language. I keep asking for an exegetical demonstration of this supposed covenant language but never seem to get any.

And I keep saying that I do not dispute that this text from Romans 8 is forensic through and through. The nature of my claim does not require that each and every use of "justification" demonstrably covenantal, but rather that, in an overall sense, Paul thinks of justification as primarily answering the question "Who is in the covenant" and not "Who is guilty or innocent in God's court?"

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. You made posts on the 23ird of June. Some of your posts are on Page 60. None of the post you made on my screen say you made them at 10:32 AM. I honestly have no idea what you might want me to see on Page 60. I will reread it, but I saw no evidence, only assertions.

The post I am referring to is shown on my computer as I specified. In any event, the post I am referring to is not the post you think I am referring to as per another post of yours.

The post where I make a direct argument for a covenantal reading of "justification" begins with my quoting something you wrote, and I then started by saying this:

"Drew would not say this at all"