God's Conditional Grace

[Eventide]

There are those who would disagree with you.

IMO this is in perfect agreement...

For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

I'm sure you'll twist the simple meaning of this to have it say the exact opposite.. people do it all the time.. but I've had enough... if you'd like to try to fulfill the righteousness of the LAW within your condemned old man, go right ahead.. it's futile.. and what's more futile, is that our Lord Jesus Christ already has, and He IS our righteousness.

 

[stovebolts]

God’s Grace –Is been given to those who DO NOT deserve it, CAN NOT earn it, and have done NOTHING for it but to simply receive it. It is uncommon.



New Living Translation Galatians 2:21I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.


(Psalm 103:12)“As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from usâ€. This psalm also tells us that God not only forgives our sins, but removes them completely from His presence. This is a profound thing! Without question, this is a very difficult concept for humans to grasp, which is why it's so easy for us to worry and wonder about forgiveness instead of just accepting it. The key lies in simply giving up our doubts and our feelings of guilt and resting in His promises of forgiveness.


1. Name a time in your life when you felt unworthy of God’s Love


2. . Describe how you are worthy of God’s Love now, what makes God Love you?


Grace is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8). 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
We should pray for the spirit and will of God, because when we sin, the Spirit will convict us of sin such that a godly sorrow will result (2 Corinthians 7:10-11).10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvationand leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. 11 See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter.He will not condemn our souls as if there is no hope, for there is no longer any condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,The Spirit’s conviction within us is a movement of love and grace.

Grace is not an excuse to sin (Romans 6:1-2), What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? And it dare not be abused, meaning that sin must be called sin, and it cannot be treated as if it is harmless or inoffensive. Unrepentant believers need to be lovingly confronted and guided to freedom, and unbelievers need to be told that they need to repent. But, we should also emphasize the remedy, for we have been given grace upon grace (John 1:16). 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.It is how we live, how we are saved, how we are sanctified, and how we will be kept and glorified. Christians are to receive grace when we sin through repenting and confessing our sin to God. Why live a soiled life when Christ offers to make us clean and whole and right in the eyes of God even though we are not?

The problem many Christians can have with not accepting grace is guilt for receiving what they know they do not deserve. That guilt is not from God, and it can lead to doubt or even pride as people try in vain to live up to “conditions of the law†in order to feel worthy rather than trust in God when God says they cannot meet the conditions and that they must leaning on the promise of God in faith, by faith that our relationship with God is in fact a real relationship and not just that of a duty bound servant. We are in fact privileged,true sons and daughters of God in this relationship made possible by the blood of Jesus Christ. We were bought with a high price.

[video=vimeo;47814754]http://vimeo.com/47814754[/video]

And the whole church said AMEN!

 

[ivdavid]

It would make no sense for God to give conditions to man if man could not keep them.

Why so?....The law of works that does not justify is stated in Lev 18:5 - The conditional that if a man Does the commandments of God, and the result that he shall live. This same conditional is mentioned in Deut 30:16 and is extended to the options of Deut 30:19 and the specific command to choose life and blessing and to not choose death and curse. According to you, is this conditional of Lev 18:5 met by any created man choosing life instead of curse here in Deut 30:19?

no one today can be justified by keeping the OT law which Christ took out of the way but those who did live under the OT law when it was still in effect could be reckoned righteous by keeping it.

even before the NT revelation, those under the law could not be justified under it

under the OT they could be justified by keeping it perfectly yet no one but Christ could do that.

I've compiled this point in sequence. What I've understood from your responses is that the law did make provision for man to be justified unto life by him Doing All the commandments of God perfectly but no man but Christ could do that - hence no created man could fulfill the conditional of Lev 18:5 to attain life by doing so - then why was Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:19 given by God in the first place - Why would God command man to choose life by keeping the law which cannot be kept unto justification by any created man? And how fair/just is it for created man to be condemned under the curse of the law for something he is anyway not able to do?

God, even in the Old Testament, was looking for an "obedient faith" in his children, and not merely for the legalistic type of rule-keeping which was the essence of the Law. The Law did not even require faith, as seen in the quotation Paul gave here from Leviticus 18:5, the meaning of which may be paraphrased, "No matter about faith; do the Law and live."

Paul quotes Lev 18:5, the law given by God, and says it is not of faith. What is meant by faith here? Also, how can the essence of something given by God be legalistic? Besides, legalism only describes the manner in which the law is kept, not what the law is itself - but here the law, Lev 18:5, itself is said to be not of faith. And is that paraphrase accurate of Lev 18:5 which ends with an "I am the Lord" attribution?

This is the main point we were discussing in our last exchange, so I started with this. We can move on to the sub-points whenever necessary after this is discussed.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I've compiled this point in sequence. What I've understood from your responses is that the law did make provision for man to be justified unto life by him Doing All the commandments of God perfectly but no man but Christ could do that - hence no created man could fulfill the conditional of Lev 18:5 to attain life by doing so - then why was Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:19 given by God in the first place - Why would God command man to choose life by keeping the law which cannot be kept unto justification by any created man? And how fair/just is it for created man to be condemned under the curse of the law for something he is anyway not able to do?

They could not keep the OT law perfectly but it did not condemn them to the point it made salvation impossible. Else why/how were John's parents called "righteous" and said to walk in all of God's commandments and statutes BLAMELESS when we know they sinned? WHen they did sin, the law made provision that certain types of sacrifices could be made for those sins, Heb 9:7,9; Heb 10:1-4. The problem was those OT sacrifices could not make them "perfect", i.e., it could not completely remit those sins for there was a remembrance made of those sins every year. It took the blood of Christ to get sins competely remitted once for all where no remembrance was made each year of sins, v10.

Paul quotes Lev 18:5, the law given by God, and says it is not of faith. What is meant by faith here? Also, how can the essence of something given by God be legalistic? Besides, legalism only describes the manner in which the law is kept, not what the law is itself - but here the law, Lev 18:5, itself is said to be not of faith. And is that paraphrase accurate of Lev 18:5 which ends with an "I am the Lord" attribution?

This is the main point we were discussing in our last exchange, so I started with this. We can move on to the sub-points whenever necessary after this is discussed.

When Paul said in Gal 3:12 "not of faith", he was saying the OT law did not even require faith on part of the Jew, he could just keep the law faithlessly or legalistically as you say.

Yet if the Jew had faith it would not mean he did not have to keep the law. His faith did not do away with the law for if there was no law there would be no sin.

Rom 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

Faith does not void law. It does not void the law of Moses or the NT law of Christ or any other law for faith upholds law.

One commentator puts it:

1) If the law of Moses is under primary consideration in this verse, then teaching justification by faith simply upholds what the law and the prophets had predicted. (3:21)

2) If the 'law' under consideration is 'the law all are under today': The person who seeks to be right with God on the basis of obedient trust/humble submission, is the individual that will be always be ready to conform to God's commands, and quickly repent (demonstrating respect for law) when they violate them.

3) By contrast, all that claim they can be right with God on the basis of perfect law-keeping, violate and show disrespect for the law of God, for such people refuse to see where they violate the law. (1 John 1:10)

 

[ivdavid]

They could not keep the OT law perfectly but it did not condemn them to the point it made salvation impossible....WHen they did sin, the law made provision that certain types of sacrifices could be made for those sins...The problem was those OT sacrifices could not make them "perfect", i.e., it could not completely remit those sins ...It took the blood of Christ to get sins competely remitted once for all...

You speak in degrees - "the OT sacrifices could not completely remit sins" - did it partially remit sins then? Isn't it just a shadow of the real image of good things to come? Besides, Heb 10:4,11 state that the OT sacrifices could never take away sins - how is there partial remission then?

Secondly, if the law made provisions for people to fulfill and not be condemned, then aren't we to say that these have been justified under the law itself? Isn't the law binary - if a man is not condemned by the law, he is justified by the law and if a man is not justified by the law, he is condemned by it. So, when you say man is not necessarily condemned unto death under the law, then aren't you saying that man could be justified by the law?

Thirdly, why must Christ redeem us from the curse of the law if the OT sacrifices itself were effective in doing so? And if the OT sacrifices were not effective in doing so, then why say that people could be justified and saved under the law itself?

And my earlier questions of -
God commands Lev 18:5 and also gives Deut 27:26 as quoted in Gal 3:10. And you say that no created man is able to fulfill the conditionals of Lev 18:5 - Of course, you mentioned about OT sacrifices providing a means to salvation - but that's only addressing how man is redeemed from the curse of the law, it does not address how man got under the curse of the law in the first place. Man got under the curse in the first place because he couldn't do the conditionals of the law, right? So, why did God give man conditionals he couldn't anyway meet - and how is it fair/just that God place man under the curse of something he anyway couldn't do?

 

[ivdavid]

Else why/how were John's parents called "righteous" and said to walk in all of God's commandments and statutes BLAMELESS when we know they sinned?

Is this the basis of your understanding that OT sacrifices were effective in reckoning people righteous before God? The OT sacrifices need not be the means of OT man being reckoned righteous before God - we see in Rom 4:5-6 how the OT believer is imputed righteousness by God who justifies the ungodly.

One can only be blameless by walking in God's commands for blame/sin is upon those that disobey God's commands.

I could argue on Php 3:6 where Paul calls himself similarly 'blameless' as touching the righteousness which is in the law - the mutual exclusivity of man's own righteousness which is of the law and the righteousness of God which is of faith (Php 3:9, Rom 10:3-5) - to then show that such blamelessness is of the flesh(Php 3:4) and is not effective in redeeming man from the curse of the law(Rom 8:3) and to conclude that the mere phrase "blameless in the law" does not imply being justified by God unto righteousness and salvation. But since I don't believe John's parents were being referred to as righteous in a Pharisaical sense, I shall not apply this argument to Luke 1:6.

Anyway, just as you, I hold that blame is upon man for his own sins/transgressions - but you strictly hold that blamelessness is upon man for his own walking in righteousness as if it's the only conclusion possible. I hold that blamelessness is upon man not because of his own righteousness but because of what Christ did on the cross, which righteousness He imputes upon man and then further causes him to walk in righteousness by His Spirit. So I'd cut out the word "only" in your statement and agree with you that "One can be blameless by walking in God's commands for blame/sin is upon those that disobey God's commands" though that's not how we will stand blameless before God on the day of reckoning.

No one can be righteous while doing unrighteousness

Agreed - if you are strictly linking only man's actions with the adjective of state describing if he is righteous or not. But if you include God's actions - you are essentially saying that God cannot justify the ungodly and that He cannot reconcile man to Himself while man is still an enemy to Him - and thereby reckon an unrighteous person as righteous because of what Christ has done.

It would be impossible for John's parents to be righteous while obeying unrighteousness.

It is indeed impossible for John's parents to be righteous while obeying unrighteousness - but is it impossible for John's parents to be made righteous while they were yet by nature children of wrath? Such justification also resulting in sanctification wherein these are now led causatively by God into good works as bond-servants of righteousness.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

You speak in degrees - "the OT sacrifices could not completely remit sins" - did it partially remit sins then? Isn't it just a shadow of the real image of good things to come? Besides, Heb 10:4,11 state that the OT sacrifices could never take away sins - how is there partial remission then?

Heb 10:3,4 "But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year. For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

The blood of bulls and goats could not completely remit sins, there was a remembrance made of those sins each year. So their sins were always in front of them therefore each year the high priest made an offering their sins rolling their sins ahead another year. It took the blood of Christ to completely remit sins. If the blood of bulls and goats could completely remit sins then the Hebrew writes says "....can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins."

So if the blood of bulls and goats could completely remits sins (make the comers perfect) then they would not have ceased to be offered and there would have been no need for Christ to shed His blood for man's sins.

Secondly, if the law made provisions for people to fulfill and not be condemned, then aren't we to say that these have been justified under the law itself? Isn't the law binary - if a man is not condemned by the law, he is justified by the law and if a man is not justified by the law, he is condemned by it. So, when you say man is not necessarily condemned unto death under the law, then aren't you saying that man could be justified by the law?

The law as it was required perfect keeping of it to be justified.

David did not keep the law perfectly, so how was he justified? Abraham sinned too meaning he did not keep God's law perfectly, so how was he justified?

They were justified by an obedient faith not by faith only. In Rom 4 neither Abraham or David was the "worker" who tried to keep God's law perfectly thereby making their reward of debt and not of grace, verse 4.

But they were ones who did not do faithless works of merit to earn justification but had an obedient belief in God who justifes the ungodly/sinner, verse 5.

Thirdly, why must Christ redeem us from the curse of the law if the OT sacrifices itself were effective in doing so? And if the OT sacrifices were not effective in doing so, then why say that people could be justified and saved under the law itself?

Gal 5:1 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

Paul called the OT law a "yoke of bondage". Why would the Galatians leave and quit obeying Christ's NT gospel that made them free from sin (sins completely remitted) and go back to that yoke of bondage, Gal 5:1?

The law of Moses was a hard law to keep it required perfect obedience to all of it, Gal 5:3, else one would be condemned. Christ took that difficult law out of the way nailing it to His cross, Col 2:12ff freeing man from that law to have the freedom that is found in Christ Jesus.


Gal 2:21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

If one could be completely justified by the law of Moses, then why did Christ need to die? Was anyone able to be justified by keeping the lw of Moses perfectly?


The great problem existing from the day man first committed sin is, "How can even God justly declare a human being to be righteous?" That the Law of Moses could not do it is an axiom. If true righteousness could have been procured by any man who ever lived on earth through means of the Mosaic Law, Christ's death would not have been necessary. The corollary of that is that for one to rely upon law-keeping for justification is to repudiate and reject Christ' sacrifice.
And how does God justly account a man to be righteous? It is not by shooting righteousness into him gratuitously because he believed, but by transferring the sinner into Christ who IS righteous, the sinner first of all renouncing his own identity, in the sense of having any merit (as Jesus said, "denying himself"'), being baptized into Christ and remaining "in him" until the final summons. It is the perfect faith and righteousness of Jesus Christ which constitute "the righteousness of God through the FAITH OF CHRIST" (Romans 3:22-26).
Coffman Commentary

And my earlier questions of -
God commands Lev 18:5 and also gives Deut 27:26 as quoted in Gal 3:10. And you say that no created man is able to fulfill the conditionals of Lev 18:5 - Of course, you mentioned about OT sacrifices providing a means to salvation - but that's only addressing how man is redeemed from the curse of the law, it does not address how man got under the curse of the law in the first place. Man got under the curse in the first place because he couldn't do the conditionals of the law, right? So, why did God give man conditionals he couldn't anyway meet - and how is it fair/just that God place man under the curse of something he anyway couldn't do?

Man was not able to keep the law perfectly and the law required perfection to be justified.


God giving law is not unfair, law determines what is right and wrong. If there were no law then there would be no such thing as sin, no such thing as right and wrong. Man can keep God's law but chooses not to, Christ chose to keep it.

God giving the Jews the law of Moses was not unfair but a blessing.

Rom 3;1 "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?"

"This is a reply to the question of an objector who might have said, "Well, if both Jews and Gentiles stand on exactly the same grounds of judgment, and if God is no respector of persons, what was the use of the whole Mosaic system? Why be a Jew, or be circumcised? What was the advantage of it?

Rom 3:2 "Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

" Answer: The great advantage was in their being custodians of the Sacred Scriptures. Many other advantages accrued to the Jewish nation as a result of their possession of God's oracles; but rather than outlining a list of such blessings, Paul went to the source of them all and named their custodial possession of the holy revelation through the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament as their greatest advantage, since that was the fountain source from which all others derived. This teaches that the greatest advantage any person can have is that of knowing God's will. By promptly naming such an advantage, Paul did not allow for one moment that God's impending judgment against Israel because of their sins could have the effect of canceling out the marvelous advantages possessed by the chosen people. Paul would return in later chapters of this epistle to a fuller discussion of the peculiar favor of God to the Jews; but, for the moment, this one great advantage was enough to cite. The profit of circumcision was dealt with by Paul a little later in Romans 4."
Coffman Commentary

 

[ivdavid]

Is man in the flesh able to keep God's lev 18:5 law?

Man was not able to keep the law perfectly and the law required perfection to be justified.
Man can keep God's law but chooses not to, Christ chose to keep it.

I think this is the crux of the first core point we've been discussing.

Firstly, can you clarify if Man in the flesh* is able to keep God's law or not ie whether he is able to fulfill the Lev 18:5 conditional or not. Which one of the above premises do you actually hold?

Secondly, I'd like to know if you do differentiate between capacity and ability - where Capacity is having the inherent means to doing something and Ability is the actual exercising of such capacity. For eg: A person with good eyesight who is blind-folded does have the capacity to see but is not able to see. In this sense, would you agree with me when I say that God created man in the flesh with the capacity to keep His law but man is not able to do so now after the fall because of the blinding corruption of sin in the flesh?

If you would not agree with my previous statement and instead hold man in the flesh to be able to keep God's law - then what of Rom 7,8 in this context and the whole doctrine of regeneration? Why must man in the flesh be born from above in the spirit if he is able to keep God's law in the flesh itself? Why must we have the mind of Christ by His Spirit instead of our own fleshly minds if the latter alone suffices unto our keeping God's law by ourselves? Most importantly, why must Scripture state that the inclination of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be?

Also, if man in the flesh is indeed able to keep God's law ie fulfill the Lev 18:5 conditional, then that implies the law could have given life ie man could have attained unto life by simply fulfilling the lev 18:5 law's conditional and righteousness would have been by the law(Rom 10:5) - but as seen in Gal 3:21, the law was never meant to give life - again resulting in the conclusion that man in the flesh can never keep God's law.

We seem to have built entire parts of our understanding of God and His ways based on this core point - so let's conclude on whether man in the flesh is able to fulfill the lev 18:5 conditional or not.

* (I keep referring to it as "man in the flesh" in order to differentiate him from the "man in Christ".)

 

[WIP]

Firstly, can you clarify if Man in the flesh* is able to keep God's law or not

If I may, I'll share my thoughts. No, we are not capable alone. Even if we somehow have the desire it is not within our power to fulfill the law to perfection. This is why we need to turn to Christ and why Christ's atoning sacrifice is so desperately needed.

 

[ivdavid]

If I may, I'll share my thoughts. No, we are not capable alone. Even if we somehow have the desire it is not within our power to fulfill the law to perfection. This is why we need to turn to Christ and why Christ's atoning sacrifice is so desperately needed.

Glad to have some more discussing this. If not already known, I too believe man in the flesh is never able to keep the law as commanded by God. But then arise the questions - why did God command man to keep something He knew man could never keep? Why command the impossible of man - and then hold him responsible for it by placing him under the curse of the law(Gal 3:10)? Of course, man has redemption from this curse in Christ's atoning work - but why was man under the curse in the first place for not doing what he anyway could not have done? I do not ask these questions skeptically - I believe God is just and righteous in all His ways - these are asked with the intent to know more about the nature of our God and His wisdom in all that He does.

Also, what do you mean by "fulfilling the law to perfection"? Is it "perfection" in any given act or "perfection" in the sum total of acts? Most people hold to the latter reference - and I'm curious to know where they get that from. It doesn't make a difference to this present discussion but why do people hold obeying the law to actually mean obeying the law "perfectly" as if they believe man in the flesh can obey the law "imperfectly"?

 

[WIP]

Pride. I don't always think God's commandments are given to us for the purpose of telling us what we are to do but more to show us what we fail to do. We are easily prone to arrogance, pride, and self-righteousness. When we begin to think we are good then he can point us to his commandments as a way of saying, "You arrogant little brat! You think you're good? Consider this..." And then he proceeds to tell us how we are not perfect and good.

Fulfill the law to perfection. I feel God's perfection is way beyond us. We have actually already failed before we even try. Yet, we are told to love him with all our heart, mind, and strength. We are told to be perfect as he is perfect. That seems to be a part of our purpose and why he created us.

I don't need to explain it or even understand it but I am sure glad he loves us enough to tell us.

 

[savedbygrace57]

There is no such thing as God's conditional Grace, that would make it not Grace any more !

 

[ivdavid]

The question however is - how does man In the flesh get IN Christ - What is/are the effective cause(s)? Is it caused because of an act of man in the flesh OR is it caused because of an act of our merciful God OR both?

Remember I told you and then it was ignored as if nothing was said.

This is from the thread on predestination - I didn't want to hijack that thread, so I'll continue here.

Is it possible for a person in the flesh to please God by believing in and into Him - yes/no would suffice but I'd readily read further explanations too.

I too agree that I wasn't answering your question as clearly as I probably could, and that's why I posted the reference to Romans 4 and what our father Abraham hath found, as pertaining to the flesh..

I had requested a direct yes/no answer and then the explanation so that we could head towards conclusions instead of going round in ambiguous circles. Since I didn't get the yes/no reply, and since I didn't want to guess on my own, I took it as you wanting to give this some more thought. But given your earlier comment on how you feel I have ignored it, I take it that you feel you have indeed answered my question unambiguously. Right, then to your answer that refers Romans 4 -

I ask whether man in the flesh can please God by believing in and into Him - and your reply seems to be in the affirmative wherein you quote Rom 4:1 to ask "what Abraham in the flesh hath found" and give its answer as Rom 4:3 - as if Abraham in the flesh hath found "faith". But don't you think, given Paul's continual tirade against the flesh, that he would be asking Rom 4:1 in a rhetorical sense to conclude as - "what hath Abraham in the flesh found - Nothing." "What does the flesh profit - Nothing.[John 6:63]".

As to "Abraham in the flesh finding faith", you seem to be saying that the flesh does indeed play perhaps a small but nonetheless vital role in our salvation - either as the beginning or as part of our perfection/completion. But look at Gal 3:3 which contradicts this - and note the tone of Gal 3:1 and the fact that Paul uses the same Rom 4 argument in Gal 3:6 to prove that there is no profitable role for the flesh at any stage of our salvation. How do you reconcile this?

Also, Heb 11:6 implies that one with faith does please God - and so, if Abraham in the flesh hath found faith, such in the flesh must be pleasing to God - but what then of Rom 8:7-8 and the whole surrounding context, which categorically states that the inclinations of the flesh are not subject to the law of God, neither can be, and hence those in the flesh can never be pleasing to God? How do you reconcile this?

As to my original question, you seem to be alternating between both sides of it - so I'd like you to clarify your belief on this with a simple yes/no followed then by further additions as you please. I'm not pressing for a reply here - but when you do give one, I'd like it to be unambiguous - given your standards of expecting people to back what they state against you.

Don't you believe that God alone is good..? There's another foundational principle of the gospel.. And if so, then how can God be making you better.. Wouldn't that mean that you're good too ?

If God alone is good and if I in the flesh cannot claim to be good and I in the flesh can never get better or be bettered - then how different is this foundational principle of the Gospel from the doctrine of total depravity?

 

[ivdavid]

Pride. I don't always think God's commandments are given to us for the purpose of telling us what we are to do but more to show us what we fail to do. We are easily prone to arrogance, pride, and self-righteousness.

Very true. I'd add that the flesh is always prone to the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and pride of life[1John 2:16] just as in Gen 3:6.

I don't need to explain it or even understand it but I am sure glad he loves us enough to tell us.

Fair enough. He is sufficient for all things. Besides, aren't we all WIP?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

There is no such thing as God's conditional Grace, that would make it not Grace any more !

Naaman had to dip in the Jordan River 7 times to be cleansed. His cleansing was by grace but conditional upon his dipping.

So you are saying his having to conditonally dip means his cleansing was not of grace?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Re: Is man in the flesh able to keep God's lev 18:5 law?

I think this is the crux of the first core point we've been discussing.

Firstly, can you clarify if Man in the flesh* is able to keep God's law or not ie whether he is able to fulfill the Lev 18:5 conditional or not. Which one of the above premises do you actually hold?

Lk 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Did John's parents keep the law perfectly and therefore they were perfectly sinless? No. Then explain how Luke said they walked in God's commandments blameless.

Secondly, I'd like to know if you do differentiate between capacity and ability - where Capacity is having the inherent means to doing something and Ability is the actual exercising of such capacity. For eg: A person with good eyesight who is blind-folded does have the capacity to see but is not able to see. In this sense, would you agree with me when I say that God created man in the flesh with the capacity to keep His law but man is not able to do so now after the fall because of the blinding corruption of sin in the flesh?

Gen 4:7 "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. "

AS God shows it was within Cain's own ability to do well or not do well. The conditonal "ifs" show it was encumbant upon Cainn to choose to do well or not. God even tells Cain to rule over sin someting not possible if Cain were "totally depraved". So man has both the capacity and ability to do well.

If you would not agree with my previous statement and instead hold man in the flesh to be able to keep God's law - then what of Rom 7,8 in this context and the whole doctrine of regeneration? Why must man in the flesh be born from above in the spirit if he is able to keep God's law in the flesh itself? Why must we have the mind of Christ by His Spirit instead of our own fleshly minds if the latter alone suffices unto our keeping God's law by ourselves? Most importantly, why must Scripture state that the inclination of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be?

Rom 8:5-10 "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness."

What you are is a result of what you put your mind to. If you are of the flesh that is because you have chosen to put your mind on things after the flesh. If you are of the spirit that is becasue you have chosen to put your mind on things after the spirit.


Rom 8:13 "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

Just as in Gen 4:7 God showed that Cain had within him the capacity and ability to choose to do well or not do well, the Romans had the capacity and ability to choose to live after the flesh or after the spirit. The conditional "ifs" shows they had a choice in the matter of how they would live. Neither living after the flesh or living after the spirit was forced upon them by God.

The context does not say that one who has put his mind on the flesh, that it is impossible for him to ever to change his mind and put it on things of the spirit. Nor does the context say one must first have some direct intervention by God to "regenreate" one so then he would be able to put his mind on things of the spirit.

Also, if man in the flesh is indeed able to keep God's law ie fulfill the Lev 18:5 conditional, then that implies the law could have given life ie man could have attained unto life by simply fulfilling the lev 18:5 law's conditional and righteousness would have been by the law(Rom 10:5) - but as seen in Gal 3:21, the law was never meant to give life - again resulting in the conclusion that man in the flesh can never keep God's law.

We seem to have built entire parts of our understanding of God and His ways based on this core point - so let's conclude on whether man in the flesh is able to fulfill the lev 18:5 conditional or not.

* (I keep referring to it as "man in the flesh" in order to differentiate him from the "man in Christ".)

Again, Lk 1:6 shows John's parents walked in God's commandments blameless.
Obeing God was something they chose to do and not forced upon them. They were able to attain "righteousness" by walking in God's commandments.

Gal 3:21 "[Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

Gal 3:22 "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."

The law itself required perfect obedience to it to be justified. The problem: all under sin. No one could keep the OT law perfectly and thereby be perfectly sinless. Did that mean no one could be justifed or accounted as righteous under the law? No, look at John's parents. They lived under the law, they sinned and did not keep the law perfectly yet they were blameless. Explain how they were blameless having not kept the law perfectly?


I do not believe that under the OT law that God was looking for men who could robotically keep God's law perfectly without faith whereby they would earn salvation, but God was looking for those that would be faithful to Him and obey as Abraham. Abraham was not perfectly sinless but was faithful and obedient to God and reckoned righteous for being that way.

"And Samuel said, Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams." 1 Sam 15:22.


"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.", Hs 6:6.


Under the NT, those in Christ Jesus share in Christ's perfect obedience and righteousness. But it takes obedience to be in Christ and share His perfectness as it took obedience by John's parents to be blameless.

 

[ivdavid]

Did that mean no one could be justifed or accounted as righteous under the law? No, look at John's parents.

You yourself say that they failed at the Lev 18:5 criteria - how could they then be justified by the Lev 18:5 law? They were not justified by the law - they were justified by faith. Have you accidentally missed this post - I thought I'd dealt with this there. If there's something there that you want me to clarify further, I shall do so.

Do you differentiate between justification "by the law" and "under the law"? If so, what is the difference? If not, doesn't Gal 3:11 categorically state that there is no justification by the law?

The context does not say that one who has put his mind on the flesh, that it is impossible for him to ever to change his mind and put it on things of the spirit. Nor does the context say one must first have some direct intervention by God to "regenreate" one so then he would be able to put his mind on things of the spirit.

There are several points I'd like to discuss on this part of Romans 8 - but I shall do that after we've finished our current point of discussion. But just to set it up, let's assume this context does mean that man can choose between the flesh and the Spirit - but doesn't that imply man must first have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in him to choose against the flesh. What of man in the flesh and not in the spirit, who does not have the Spirit of Christ and is none of his (Rom 8:9) - can he ever put his fleshly mind that is in enmity against God and can never be subject to His law(Rom 8:7) - can he put this mind on the things of the Spirit?

Now back to our current point of discussion -

The law itself required perfect obedience to it to be justified. The problem: all under sin. No one could keep the OT law perfectly and thereby be perfectly sinless. Did that mean no one could be justifed or accounted as righteous under the law?

1. The law itself required perfect obedience to it to be justified [by it].
2. No one could keep the OT law perfectly.
Did that mean no one could be justifed or accounted as righteous under the law?

I'd say that the valid concluding inference from the above two premises is that man could not be justified by the law because he failed to keep the Lev 18:5 conditional criteria of the law to be justified by it. What you have gone on about is that the OT man could be justified unto salvation - and I have never raised an argument against OT man's justification per se - I only wanted you to see how such justification never came by the law. Everyone who tried to keep the Lev 18:5 conditional criteria failed - and came under the curse of the law - where redemption could be found in Christ alone, their being justified by faith in God who justifies the ungodly, without the deeds of the law(Rom 3:28).

Finally, to proceed further, I've set some objective-type questions that you could answer with simply a yes/no if you find them unambiguous - but if you require them to be modified to be more specific, tell me where to clarify.

1. Has any created man in the flesh ever kept the Lev 18:5 conditional criteria?
2. Can any created man in the flesh ever keep the Lev 18:5 conditional criteria?
3. If one were to fail the Lev 18:5 conditional criteria, were they placed under the curse of the law?

They[John's parents] were able to attain "righteousness" by walking in God's commandments.

But what then of imputed righteousness because of what Christ has done on the cross(Rom 4:6)? If man were able to attain righteousness by what he himself does, why the need for imputed righteousness? And if there's no need for imputed righteousness, then Christ is dead in vain. The mutually exclusive choice is between justification by the law where man attains self-righteousness by what he does(Rom 10:3,5) - and justification by faith where man is imputed righteousness by what God does.

 

[Eventide]

This is from the thread on predestination - I didn't want to hijack that thread, so I'll continue here.

I see this is from last week.. if you're going to play hide and seek with me then it might take longer to get what you're after here.

I had requested a direct yes/no answer and then the explanation so that we could head towards conclusions instead of going round in ambiguous circles. Since I didn't get the yes/no reply, and since I didn't want to guess on my own, I took it as you wanting to give this some more thought. But given your earlier comment on how you feel I have ignored it, I take it that you feel you have indeed answered my question unambiguously. Right, then to your answer that refers Romans 4 -

I ask whether man in the flesh can please God by believing in and into Him - and your reply seems to be in the affirmative wherein you quote Rom 4:1 to ask "what Abraham in the flesh hath found" and give its answer as Rom 4:3 - as if Abraham in the flesh hath found "faith".

YES... is that clear enough ? Absolutely I believe that this is what Romans 4 is teaching us.. for a couple reasons..

1. It comes right out and says it.
2. There was no regeneration in the OT.. Abraham heard the voice of God (as did Adam AFTER the fall) and he actually BELIEVED what God was saying to him.. imagine that...

But don't you think, given Paul's continual tirade against the flesh, that he would be asking Rom 4:1 in a rhetorical sense to conclude as - "what hath Abraham in the flesh found - Nothing." "What does the flesh profit - Nothing.[John 6:63]".

Never, not even one time have I heard the word of God in Romans 4 as rhetoric. Don't you think that's stretching things a little David.. ? I mean come on.. is there no end to the TULIP for you.. must everything GOD says be filtered through CALVIN first ?

As to "Abraham in the flesh finding faith", you seem to be saying that the flesh does indeed play perhaps a small but nonetheless vital role in our salvation - either as the beginning or as part of our perfection/completion. But look at Gal 3:3 which contradicts this - and note the tone of Gal 3:1 and the fact that Paul uses the same Rom 4 argument in Gal 3:6 to prove that there is no profitable role for the flesh at any stage of our salvation. How do you reconcile this?

What must I DO to be saved ?

a) BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ (or in Abraham's case, simply believe GOD)..
b) NOTHING.. Calvin says that I can't do anything so it must be true.

See how ridiculous this is.. it is perhaps the most foundational aspect of the gospel of God's Son and because you must filter it all through your brilliant scholars.. you can't even get it right..

Also, Heb 11:6 implies that one with faith does please God - and so, if Abraham in the flesh hath found faith, such in the flesh must be pleasing to God - but what then of Rom 8:7-8 and the whole surrounding context, which categorically states that the inclinations of the flesh are not subject to the law of God, neither can be, and hence those in the flesh can never be pleasing to God? How do you reconcile this?

That's part of BELIEVING GOD.. He must INCREASE and I must DECREASE.. unless of course you don't actually believe that.. and are led to believe that God is making YOU better.. or that God chose YOU along with His infinitely GLORIOUS Son..

As to my original question, you seem to be alternating between both sides of it - so I'd like you to clarify your belief on this with a simple yes/no followed then by further additions as you please. I'm not pressing for a reply here - but when you do give one, I'd like it to be unambiguous - given your standards of expecting people to back what they state against you.

If God alone is good and if I in the flesh cannot claim to be good and I in the flesh can never get better or be bettered - then how different is this foundational principle of the Gospel from the doctrine of total depravity?

If I haven't made myself perfectly clear David.. then I'm sorry.

Why don't YOU explain total depravity to me and then we can take it from there.. that way I won't be accused of never having read anything about the subject.. we'll go right from the horses mouth so to speak.

OK ?

 

[Eventide]

Abraham believed God...

If Calvinism were true, then all that the Holy Spirit would have needed to say is simply this...

Abraham was counted righteous, and then he believed God.

Of course that's completely the opposite of what the word of God does say in simplicity and in truth..

Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.

But wait, there's more..(and you don't need to pay additional shipping charges)...

Then we're told that Abraham was given the sign of circumcision, which is the SEAL of the righteousness of the faith.. The faith which Abraham had before he was circumcised..

Can the word of God be any more direct here ?

And if that's not enough, the Apostle Paul tells us the same thing... That God SEALED us with the Holy Spirit of promise...

WHEN did God seal us ?

After we trusted in Christ, after hearing the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation, and AFTER we believed.

If that's not crystal clear... Then IMO you're simply not listening to the voice of God.

 

[ivdavid]

Absolutely I believe that this is what Romans 4 is teaching us.. for a couple reasons..

1. It comes right out and says it.
2. There was no regeneration in the OT.. Abraham heard the voice of God (as did Adam AFTER the fall) and he actually BELIEVED what God was saying to him.. imagine that...

Let's deal with this point-by-point. Your point 1 asserts that Rom 4:1 does indeed show Abraham finding something good in the flesh while I assert that it is a rhetoric to conclude there is nothing good to be found in the flesh(much like Php 3:3-7). I have stated the following from Scripture as my basis for this assertion -
a) Paul's continual tirade against the flesh
b) John 6:63 - the flesh cannot give life and profits nothing

You are yet to show how you've reconciled these. But let's examine the basis you've laid out for your assertion -

Never, not even one time have I heard the word of God in Romans 4 as rhetoric.

And this makes you and what you've heard, the basis of interpreting Romans 4:1? Have you heard all that is to be heard on Romans 4:1? Is there some Scriptural basis that undeniably upholds your assertion?

must everything GOD says be filtered through CALVIN first ?

As I've stated before, Scripture and my own conversion have solely led to my understanding of what you collectively term as calvinism - I came across these same doctrines as stated by Calvin(not him directly but those who likewise have found their own learnings from God reportedly aligning with his) much after I had already concluded upon these doctrines(though without their commonly known terms of reference) myself. But now that you seem insistent on ad-hominem attacks, why pick Calvin - and why not Wesley? Given that you've "never, not even one time heard Rom 4:1 as rhetoric", I'd like to change that with this commentary of Wesley's.

..is there no end to the TULIP for you...

If this is the truth of God, then indeed there should be no end. But we are yet to unite in the truth and I am patiently hopeful of what God is sufficient to do.

2. There was no regeneration in the OT..

Your point 2 asserts that there is no regeneration in the OT. On what basis do you make this assertion - an argument from silence?

My first basis to believe otherwise is that God's ways of justification have not changed - it has always been by faith even when Scriptures of those times have been perceived to imply it was by the law - which is why Paul wrote extensively, clarifying this. If God's ways have always remained the same w.r.t. justification despite the giving of the Lev 18:5 law of works(which serves another purpose apart from justification), I can infer His entire plan of salvation has no requirement to change.

Secondly, how do you explain John 3:3,5 - if the OT saints were not regenerated, how can they enter the Kingdom of God? This point alone should be conclusive enough - or have you reconciled this in another way?

Abraham heard the voice of God (as did Adam AFTER the fall) and he actually BELIEVED what God was saying to him.. imagine that...

You've built this on your previous assertion that there was no regeneration in the OT - to further infer that man could have faith even when not regenerated - but if your prior assertion falls, this inference of yours is rendered invalid. I hold that both of them(and all the other OT saints) were spiritually enabled to hear, believe and obey as a result of their being regenerated. This belief of mine is yet to be negated from Scripture - and as you'd be knowing, an argument from silence doesn't suffice as logical proof.

What must I DO to be saved ?

a) BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ (or in Abraham's case, simply believe GOD)..
b) NOTHING.. Calvin says that I can't do anything so it must be true.

This is in response to a question I had put forth. To answer my question with another question, your new question should directly and rhetorically answer mine - which I don't see how it does. So could you explain how the flesh plays perhaps a small but nonetheless vital role in our salvation - either as the beginning or as part of our perfection/completion - when Gal 3:3 states otherwise. And in the same context, how do you reconcile that the flesh is able to obey and believe into the spiritual things of the Gospel of Christ given Gal 5:17 ?

As to your question, you've set up a false dilemma. The doctrine of God's sovereign election does not deny the doctrine of justification by faith. When asked what one must do to be saved - the answer is always (a) Believe in God and in Him whom He has sent. While I state that this is impossible of man in the flesh to do, I do not presume upon myself to stop commanding him the same - just as it was not presumed to erase Lev 18:5 Law of works from OT Scripture even when it was impossible of any created man in the flesh to fulfill and be justified by it.

You see, man is always accountable for his actions and choices - he is commanded to keep the law, he chooses not to and comes under the curse of the law. He is then commanded to believe in Christ to be redeemed from this curse of the law, and man in the flesh still chooses not to - and he remains under the curse of the law - the law of sin and death. And yet, not as he deserves fittingly now for being an enemy of God, but by the grace of One who justifies the ungodly, such a one in the flesh is regenerated and is born from above in the spirit - not to waive off justification by faith but in order to uphold it. For this regenerated man now is vividly conscious of his sins and more so conscious of the glory and love of God, that he inevitably repents through confession and believes in the sole hope of Christ for his salvation, having lost all hope in the arm of sinful flesh. What the hardened heart could not see and hear and understand, the new heart could. In all this, the doctrine of justification by faith has not been denied. As to why one is shown mercy while not another is answered by Romans 9:15-16, the doctrine of Sovereign election, which still doesn't deny the previously established doctrine of justification by faith.

That's part of BELIEVING GOD.. He must INCREASE and I must DECREASE.. unless of course you don't actually believe that.. and are led to believe that God is making YOU better.. or that God chose YOU along with His infinitely GLORIOUS Son..

You don't have to sell the "God is not making YOU better" doctrine to a person who already believes in the doctrine of total depravity - I already hold that there is no good in the flesh, neither can be, for God to better the flesh. All good is done by Christ in me and by Him alone, in the spirit. But how does this answer my question of how this flesh - that has no good in it and that is in enmity against God - is able to lead us to believe and obey the Gospel of Christ and hence be pleasing to God while contradicting Rom 8:8 ?

Why don't YOU explain total depravity to me and then we can take it from there..

There is no good in man, ie in his flesh, which is in enmity against God, lusts against His Spirit and is not subject to His law, neither can it be - because of sin in the flesh - and hence those in the flesh cannot please God [Rom 7:18,14;8:7-8;Gal 5:17]. This is what I hold to be total depravity of man in the flesh. Hence the flesh is not profitable and it cannot give life[John 6:63].

If Calvinism were true, then all that the Holy Spirit would have needed to say is simply this...
Abraham was counted righteous, and then he believed God.

If justification by faith is true, then all that the Holy Spirit would have needed to say in Lev 18:5 is simply this - "Believe in God and ye shall live". Why give the law of works and command man to choose to do it as part of the old covenant, when it's impossible of man to do it? Are we to presume to rewrite Scripture based on man's abilities and his perceived utilitarian values?

Anyway, as mentioned before, the doctrine of justification by faith is upheld in calvinism - Abraham was justified by faith, such faith not of himself but a gift of God - rendered as a result of regeneration, hence justification is also said to be by grace. Regeneration preceding faith does not deny faith as a sequential(not meritorious) criteria of our salvation.

God SEALED us with the Holy Spirit of promise...

Is this what you reckon as regeneration? Because I don't. I consider this as the final step of the process of converting a sinner into an adopted child of God in Christ - a process which begins with God's supernatural work of regenerating or causing man who is in the flesh to be born in the spirit with a new heart in place of his hardened heart of stone.