Is Calvinism of the Bible?

[Drew]

In a recent post, I tried to argue that in Romans 10, Paul essentially quotes from Deuteronomy 30. My argument was that the intent of this was to communicate to the reader that, as per the referenced material in Deuteronomy 30, we are now "transformed" so that what was previously not possible for us, has now become possible. And a result, we do not need to think that Paul was talking about a set of zero persons in it when we wrote the following in Romans 2:

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

While I know people will tire of me saying this, I just cannot believe Paul is so muddled a writer that he is talking about something that will actually not happen to anybody.

I would now like to sharpen up this Romans 10 - Deuteronomy 30 argument.

As I hope should be clear at this point, in Romans 9 and 10, Paul has been re-telling the covenant history of Israel. Now in Chapter 10, we get Paul's understanding of what precisely covenant renewal, as promised in texts like Deut 30, is all about. It is about Jesus and how His work has renewed the covenant. Here is the key chunk of Romans 10:

6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

And here is the text from Deuteronomy 30 that Paul has obviously quoted from

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.

Now I hope that the reader will trust me when I say that the "what" in "what I am commanding you today" is obedience - keeping God's commandments. Check the context and this will be obvious.

Now, no one is going to dispute that in Romans 10, Paul is quoting from Deuteronomy 30 - note the similarity of the bolded material in both passages. For notational simplicity, I will refer to the whole bit about ascending into heaven and crossing the sea as the "nearness" phenomena, since it is about "something" being made near to us, "in our mouths and in our hearts".

Now one of the main purposes of this post is to anticipate the following objection: Drew's argument blows up in his face because whereas in Deuteronomy 30, God is saying that the ability to obey is the result of the nearness phenomena, in Romans, Paul clearly is saying that "righteousness by faith" consists, not in obedience as used to be the case, but rather in simply "non-works-based" faith - "if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved". And by quoting the "nearness" phenomena, Paul is contrasting the new state of affairs with the old.

In the old way, as per Deuteronomy 30, we were made able to obey and thereby attain righteousness by the effect of the "nearness" phenomena. In the new covenant, obedience is not an issue at all and God's "new" version of the way that the "nearness" phenomena gives us rightousness is through simple faith.

I do not think such an objection can be sustained. The reason is that in Deuteronomy 30, it is clear that the auther is not talking about the way things are "in the time before Christ" - it is clearly about what is the case at the time of covenant renewal. Note the following from Deuteronomy 30 that precedes the passage I quoted above:

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes [a] and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you.

The writer of Deuteronomy is talking about covenant renewal. And so is Paul in Romans 10. So we should not conclude that Paul is saying that "justification used to be about obedience enabled by the 'nearness phenomena' but now faith in Christ now achieves the righteousness that the 'nearness phenomena' used to achieve".

Instead of this "replacement" concept, we need to think more in terms of an identification - Paul is drawing an equality between "righteousness by faith" (as per Romans 10) and obedience as per Deuteronomy 30. Faith has not replaced obedience, faith is constituted by obedience. And it is through the gift of the Spirit that the 'nearness' phenomena plays out for us.

Remember, Deuteronomy 30 is about the way things will be when the covenant is renewed. The key insight is this: Paul sees Jesus death and resurrection as being the renewal of the covenant. This is the lynchpin of the argument that the "so you can obey" stuff from Deuteronomy 30 is indeed part and parcel of the renewed covenant. We should conclude that God has somehow made it possible for us to indeed meet the post covenant renewal requirement set out in Deuteronomy 30:

Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

 

[beloved57]

quote by beloved57 on Wed Nov 28, 2007:
unred says:

Perhaps you are thinking of this verse?
Romans 8
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.


I was going to use that verse but I foresaw the problem it would cause becuase of that phrase " who walk not after the flesh"

LOL. So you were going to use it but it actually supported what I’m saying and not what you’re touting. Truth in advertising. Good for you. Most people just cut it off at the offending point and present a truncated verse. You just made a slight inference that was more subliminal, hoping for the impact without the messy clean up. You don’t know me very well, do you?


[quote:9c95e]quote by beloved57 :
But I really have no problem with it , because all true believers are spiritual , and cannot walk after the flesh... All true believers have been severed from the flesh .
gal 5: 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

You have no problem with it because you have no compunction to simply change what it says to fit with your theology. Your new verse doesn’t help you either. Notice it says that “they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh†which is guess what? Works. It means that if you are Christ’s then you must take up your cross daily and crucify the evil desires of your flesh. Lucky for you I was able to find that chapter in Gal. 5 and give you the list:

19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

quote by beloved57 :
Walking after the flesh merely means a person is not regenerated or born again...not that we dont get caught up in the flesh sometimes and for very long times at that..

Actually no, ‘walking after the flesh’ means that a person is doing the things on the list Paul gave us, so there won’t be any confusion. When David was lusting after Bathsheba, committing adultery and plotting how to cover his sin, he was walking according to the flesh. When he confessed his sin and repented before God and the prophet, he was then reconciled to God. He still was judged and paid dearly by losing his beloved child by Bathsheba.

quote by beloved57 :
David who was a very spiritual man and Loved God..He probably was out of fellowship the whole time he began lusting after uriah wife up until nathan was sent by God to rebuke him..Its no telling how long of a span of time that was..David plotted the mans mureder on top of that, but david was never under the Judicaial condemnation of God, for God always viewed David in christ..In fact David penned these words :
ps 32
1Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
2Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

I bet you wish you could chop verse 2 right after the comma. Pity. Notice it is ‘those in whom there is no guile’ that God doesn’t ‘impute iniquity’ to. Would you like to talk about that? My dictionary says guile is cunning and deceitfulness: a cunning, deceitful, or treacherous quality. IOW, when we are honest and forthright about our sin, he forgives us. Not because we are in sin and it’s OK because we are the chosen few that he turns a blind eye to. Here is David’s confession:

Psalm 51:2 Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.

quote by beloved57 :
I thank you greatly err my friend undo if you think that the elects not being condemned is depedent upon their practical life, thats works... Not walking after the flesh means one is in christ and walks by the faith of the son of God..

It is only the natural man who is not spiritual as in 1 cor 2 14

It’s unred, not undo, but thanks for your concern. I am also concerned for you. Walking by the faith of the Son of God is doing works of faith, love and obedience. These words have meaning. They are practical and not just something we say that sounds good. You can’t just say them and not acknowledge what they mean. The natural man is a man who lives according to his sinful lusts of the flesh. Of course such a man is not being spiritual. We have all been called to live a spiritual life and put to death the flesh with it’s sinful lusts. Not just church goers and Bible readers, but everyone has been called to this way of salvation. I know that doesn’t make you feel special and important to God, but truth is, you’re not even going to be saved if you don’t follow Christ.

We have liberty from sins of the flesh and salvation in following Christ because following Christ is walking in love, which is the way we “walk by the faith of the Son of God:â€Â

13For, brethren, you have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Serving is work. Who told you there would be no works in salvation? ‘No boasting’ is not the same as ‘no works.’ You still work, you just don’t get to boast about it as if God saved you because he needed your paltry efforts, no matter how great and wonderful they are. Get real. God could create a rock to do what you do.

quote by beloved57 :
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The new man or the regenerated man is spiritual in fact that man cannot sin according to 1 jn 3:
9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

And no I am not promoting a sinless perfection for the believer here on earth, but this is a principle to say that all true believers are spiritual and are not in condemnation ever because they are in christ..their saviour…

Phew. I thought you might actually believe the verse to say what it says. I think it does say that the man who is born of the spirit doesn’t sin. I think we need to look at just who those born again people are. I know we can’t enter heaven until we are born again, but I bet not many attain to that level here on earth. I would even guess there were more in Paul’s day than today, at least there aren’t many in this worldly, greedy, lustful, backslidden nation of America.

BTW, could we shorten these a little? Starting with your reply... :wink: Vic's gonna be mad at me for taking too much space here. : :-D[/quote:9c95e]

Ok well nice talking with you, I see no further reason for me to continue our discussion..

I will make this final comment, whenever scripture uses terms like a person has no guile, it is because God views that person in christ , and have had His imputed righteousness on their behalf.

1 pet 2

22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Therefore whosoever is in christ [ by election] there is no condemnation..

 

[Drew]

Therefore whosoever is in christ [ by election] there is no condemnation..

I think that you and Paul do not see things the same way. Here is what Paul says in Romans 8 about the criteria for not being condemned (my bolding and underlining, of course):

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

9You, 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.

12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligationâ€â€but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

It seems very much like Paul is saying that there is no condemnation to those who actually walk according the Spirit.

 

[mondar]

h like Paul is saying that there is no condemnation to those who actually walk according the Spirit.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.

Only in Christ can anyone walk in the Spirit and be free from sin. It is the Spirit of life that makes a person free from sin, not their own abilities and their own efforts. Without the work of God in the human heart occurring first, there is not walking after the Spirit.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar:
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.

Only in Christ can anyone walk in the Spirit and be free from sin. It is the Spirit of life that makes a person free from sin, not their own abilities and their own efforts. Without the work of God in the human heart occurring first, there is not walking after the Spirit.

It’s not a before-after thing. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ makes us free from the law of sin and death because when we are following the Spirit, walking in love for one another, the blood of Christ washes away our sin.

1 John 1:6-7
6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin.

It’s not just for you Calvinist elect, Mondar. It’s for anyone who listens to the Spirit and follows his leading, and the Spirit is available to all, speaking the law of the Spirit of life in Christ to every heart. All we have to do is choose to obey and God is ready to help the willing heart.

 

[mondar]

quote by mondar:
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.

Only in Christ can anyone walk in the Spirit and be free from sin. It is the Spirit of life that makes a person free from sin, not their own abilities and their own efforts. Without the work of God in the human heart occurring first, there is not walking after the Spirit.

It’s not a before-after thing. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ makes us free from the law of sin and death because when we are following the Spirit, walking in love for one another, the blood of Christ washes away our sin.

1 John 1:6-7
6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin.

It’s not just for you Calvinist elect, Mondar. It’s for anyone who listens to the Spirit and follows his leading, and the Spirit is available to all, speaking the law of the Spirit of life in Christ to every heart. All we have to do is choose to obey and God is ready to help the willing heart.

Again, unred, you are speaking in foolish tautologies not found int he scriptures. If we have works both before and after salvation, then what has God done?

unred, why don't you forget trying to include the Lord in your theology in some small way. Just come right out and state your self-righteous theology clearly and say you don't need the substitutionary shed blood of Jesus Christ because you think you are already righteous enough.

Romans 4:4 No to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

 

[unred typo]

quote by by beloved57 on Thu Nov 29, 2007

Ok well nice talking with you, I see no further reason for me to continue our discussion..

I will make this final comment, whenever scripture uses terms like a person has no guile, it is because God views that person in christ , and have had His imputed righteousness on their behalf.

1 pet 2

22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Therefore whosoever is in christ [ by election] there is no condemnation..

Sure, nice talking to you, too. No harm intended. Don’t feel bad that your doctrines can’t take the heat. The wood, hay and stubble just don’t pass the fire test. If you want to hold on to your view in spite of the fact that it is NOT what the Bible teaches, I guess that’s your choice. Let me know how that works out for you.

I know you just want to drop out, but what do you think it means to be ‘in Christ’? Try reading the book of 1 John. He had a good handle on that concept.

 

[beloved57]

quote by by beloved57 on Thu Nov 29, 2007

Ok well nice talking with you, I see no further reason for me to continue our discussion..

I will make this final comment, whenever scripture uses terms like a person has no guile, it is because God views that person in christ , and have had His imputed righteousness on their behalf.

1 pet 2

22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Therefore whosoever is in christ [ by election] there is no condemnation..

Sure, nice talking to you, too. No harm intended. Don’t feel bad that your doctrines can’t take the heat. The wood, hay and stubble just don’t pass the fire test. If you want to hold on to your view in spite of the fact that it is NOT what the Bible teaches, I guess that’s your choice. Let me know how that works out for you.

I know you just want to drop out, but what do you think it means to be ‘in Christ’? Try reading the book of 1 John. He had a good handle on that concept.

Later gator holla at ya boy when you are born again lol..

 

[mondar]

quote by by beloved57 on Thu Nov 29, 2007

Ok well nice talking with you, I see no further reason for me to continue our discussion..

I will make this final comment, whenever scripture uses terms like a person has no guile, it is because God views that person in christ , and have had His imputed righteousness on their behalf.

1 pet 2

22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Therefore whosoever is in christ [ by election] there is no condemnation..

Sure, nice talking to you, too. No harm intended. Don’t feel bad that your doctrines can’t take the heat. The wood, hay and stubble just don’t pass the fire test. If you want to hold on to your view in spite of the fact that it is NOT what the Bible teaches, I guess that’s your choice. Let me know how that works out for you.

I know you just want to drop out, but what do you think it means to be ‘in Christ’? Try reading the book of 1 John. He had a good handle on that concept.

I thing if he drops out he is wise since your little more then a theological trash talker.

 

[beloved57]

quote by by beloved57 on Thu Nov 29, 2007

Ok well nice talking with you, I see no further reason for me to continue our discussion..

I will make this final comment, whenever scripture uses terms like a person has no guile, it is because God views that person in christ , and have had His imputed righteousness on their behalf.

1 pet 2

22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Therefore whosoever is in christ [ by election] there is no condemnation..

Sure, nice talking to you, too. No harm intended. Don’t feel bad that your doctrines can’t take the heat. The wood, hay and stubble just don’t pass the fire test. If you want to hold on to your view in spite of the fact that it is NOT what the Bible teaches, I guess that’s your choice. Let me know how that works out for you.

I know you just want to drop out, but what do you think it means to be ‘in Christ’? Try reading the book of 1 John. He had a good handle on that concept.

I thing if he drops out he is wise since your little more then a theological trash talker.

No problem :o

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar:
Again, unred, you are speaking in foolish tautologies not found int he scriptures. If we have works both before and after salvation, then what has God done?

unred, why don't you forget trying to include the Lord in your theology in some small way. Just come right out and state your self-righteous theology clearly and say you don't need the substitutionary shed blood of Jesus Christ because you think you are already righteous enough.

Romans 4:4 No to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

This post shows me that you don’t have a clue as to what I believe. I’m not sure I can even explain it so you will understand. I can see the concept is a huge puzzle to you. The question, “If we have works both before and after salvation, then what has God done?â€Â, reveals your lack of comprehension and my failure to explain. Let me try again.

It is by faith in what Jesus taught that we are saved, and that faith is worked out by our obedience to those things which he said to do. This salvation by faith in his words was made possible by his substitutionary death on the cross. Otherwise, we could not have paid for our sins, except with our death. Once we were dead, we would be dead and not able to rise from the grave. By our faith in Christ and following what he taught, we are born again in Christ and have a new creation waiting to be revealed in which we will rise up from the grave and live forever.

It is this new creation that we work on while we live, by submitting to the reign of Christ, we grow up in him to be mature and whole and put to death the desires of the old nature. Because Christ ever lives to make intercession for us, our sins are covered by his blood and we are made righteous by following in his ways.


As for Romans 4:4, God did not have to do anything for Abraham. God was not obligated to save him. His works and his faith were not essential to God’s well being. God didn’t need Abraham’s faith in him, nor did God need Abraham’s works nor does he need ours either. God didn’t owe Abraham anything to pay Abraham for those works that he did. Abraham’s works would not have saved him from death, nor would his faith, nor would have his fame or his riches, because all die in Adam. Because of his faith, God extended grace to Abraham, to allow him to gain eternal life. God was pleased with Abraham’s faith and he extended the gracious offer that IF Abraham continued to walk in his ways, God would bless him. We know that this was more than an earthly blessing because it culminated with eternal life offered to all the world through Abraham’s own descendant.

Abraham’s faith was his trust in whatever God said and that trust was worked out in obedience to God’s instructions and shown to all by those works. Furthermore, Abraham was not saved by works of the law given to Moses, obviously, since Moses was one of his descendants more than 400 years later. He was not saved by ceremonial works of being circumcised either, because that was the seal of the covenant that was already made between him and God. This is what Paul is getting at in Romans, among other things. God gave Isaac and all of his descendants to fulfill the earthly promise made to Abraham, as far as being a father to a multitude. Of those elect, there were some who believed in God, as Abraham did. In fact, all those who believe are counted as spiritual children of Abraham because of their faith.

You see a phrase like ‘not of works’ and ‘he that works not’ and you make your own doctrine around it instead of reading it in the context it was written in. I say ‘you’ but obviously you did not invent this mess. Nothing personal, Mondar. No offence intended. I see you have taken offence by your comment about beloved57 though:

quote by Mondar:
I thing if he drops out he is wise since your little more then a theological trash talker.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but I guess you’re entitled. I have about as much regard for the Calvinist doctrines you espouse.

 

[Drew]

f we have works both before and after salvation, then what has God done?

I cannot speak for unred but I would like to clear something up. It is simply not true that if one believes that one will be justified by the contents of one's life lived (as per Romans 2) this forces one into a theology where God has done nothing or, more importantly, where God basically is not due all the credit for one's ultimate salvation. It may suit the Calvinist's purpose to frame things way, but it is simply not correct.

God sends Jesus to Calvary and condemns sin in His flesh. He then gives us a resource - the Spirit - which enable us to do what would otherwise be impossible for us to do:

the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so

Jesus' death has solved the sin problem - something that is admittedly mysterious in its actual mechanics has occurred through God's action and God's action alone at Calvary - the power of sin has been broken. And it is not us who gave the Spirit to ourselves - the giving of the Spirit that makes it possible for us to then attain to the future justification that is described for us in Romans 2:7 is a free grace gift of God

In fact, and here is where I hope mondar and others will see this, we can know for sure in the present that those who have placed their faith in Jesus in the present will indeed pass this test. If we indeed place faith in Christ (note this qualifier, I will return to it and explore some subtleties I see in it), there is zero chance - nada chance - that we will not lead the kind of life that will enable us to be pronounced righteous on the day of judgement.

Now here is a point on which I may (repreat may) depart from the views of unred. I fully admit that I have not reached a firm understanding of which of the following is the case although I do lean towards the second of these views:

1. A one-time acceptance of Jesus as Saviour forever and irrevocably binds the Spirit to us and we simply cannot fall away after that. We are still justified by our works on the day of judgment - we cannot make the exceedingly implausible argument that Romans 2 is Paul telling us how we won't be justified.

2. The "placing faith in Jesus" is not really a one-time event but is rather a life-long responsibility that we indeed bear as "free" agents. And, to be clear, this does mean that in some sense we do play a role in determining the final outcome - if if I felt the Scriptures ruled that out, I wouldn't put it forward. Now do not let anyone twist and distort this "concession" to our "contribution" and tell you that this variant means that we "save ourselves" or that we "nullify the cross". That would be an obscene misrepresentation. Even under this view we are but the lowest of worms, unable to atain unto justification without the work of the Spirit. But from the mud, we do indeed, of our own "free" will, need to feebly and continually through life cast our eyes heavenward and be energized by the Spirit who then allows us to walk in the light.

In one sense, I kind of hope that number 1 is the truth, but I think, for Scriptural and what I will call "conceptual" reasons that I hope to explain in a future post, I think number 2 is probably correct. And I suspect that both unred and francedesales believe in number 2. I have more I would like to say about all this, but I will stop for now.

Except to reiterate the obvious - a future justification by works does not imply that the Cross has not accomplished anything or that we can in any remotely plausible sense, claim to be agents that we are the agents of our own justification.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Drew on Fri Nov 30, 2007:
mondar wrote:f we have works both before and after salvation, then what has God done?

I cannot speak for unred but I would like to clear something up. It is simply not true that if one believes that one will be justified by the contents of one's life lived (as per Romans 2) this forces one into a theology where God has done nothing or, more importantly, where God basically is not due all the credit for one's ultimate salvation. It may suit the Calvinist's purpose to frame things way, but it is simply not correct.

God sends Jesus to Calvary and condemns sin in His flesh. He then gives us a resource - the Spirit - which enable us to do what would otherwise be impossible for us to do:

the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so

Jesus' death has solved the sin problem - something that is admittedly mysterious in its actual mechanics has occurred through God's action and God's action alone at Calvary - the power of sin has been broken. And it is not us who gave the Spirit to ourselves - the giving of the Spirit that makes it possible for us to then attain to the future justification that is described for us in Romans 2:7 is a free grace gift of God

In fact, and here is where I hope mondar and others will see this, we can know for sure in the present that those who have placed their faith in Jesus in the present will indeed pass this test. If we indeed place faith in Christ (note this qualifier, I will return to it and explore some subtleties I see in it), there is zero chance - nada chance - that we will not lead the kind of life that will enable us to be pronounced righteous on the day of judgement.

I agree with this but I would like to add that the Spirit is available to all men everywhere. As you quoted in one of these multiple Calvinist threads, this word has a nearness that is inescapable. The word of God made flesh, who rose to the heavens and sent the Spirit to aid and correct and lead us to Christ, is there to interpret what God has written on all hearts, if we are willing to hear it.

quote by Drew:
Now here is a point on which I may (repreat may) depart from the views of unred. I fully admit that I have not reached a firm understanding of which of the following is the case although I do lean towards the second of these views:

1. A one-time acceptance of Jesus as Saviour forever and irrevocably binds the Spirit to us and we simply cannot fall away after that. We are still justified by our works on the day of judgment - we cannot make the exceedingly implausible argument that Romans 2 is Paul telling us how we won't be justified.

2. The "placing faith in Jesus" is not really a one-time event but is rather a life-long responsibility that we indeed bear as "free" agents. And, to be clear, this does mean that in some sense we do play a role in determining the final outcome - if if I felt the Scriptures ruled that out, I wouldn't put it forward. Now do not let anyone twist and distort this "concession" to our "contribution" and tell you that this variant means that we "save ourselves" or that we "nullify the cross". That would be an obscene misrepresentation. Even under this view we are but the lowest of worms, unable to atain unto justification without the work of the Spirit. But from the mud, we do indeed, of our own "free" will, need to feebly and continually through life cast our eyes heavenward and be energized by the Spirit who then allows us to walk in the light.

In one sense, I kind of hope that number 1 is the truth, but I think, for Scriptural and what I will call "conceptual" reasons that I hope to explain in a future post, I think number 2 is probably correct. And I suspect that both unred and francedesales believe in number 2. I have more I would like to say about all this, but I will stop for now.

Except to reiterate the obvious - a future justification by works does not imply that the Cross has not accomplished anything or that we can in any remotely plausible sense, claim to be agents that we are the agents of our own justification.

I like that: “I fully admit that I have not reached a firm understanding of which of the following is the case…†but I would rather say that my “stance†is “unwavering†like our beloved beloved57’s, although subject to revision and clarification as needed. :-D

I think I will take door # 2 even though, like you, door #1 is more appealing to the flesh that would rather not have to die daily. We hate that. :wink:

 

[mondar]

f we have works both before and after salvation, then what has God done?

I cannot speak for unred but I would like to clear something up. It is simply not true that if one believes that one will be justified by the contents of one's life lived (as per Romans 2) this forces one into a theology where God has done nothing or, more importantly, where God basically is not due all the credit for one's ultimate salvation. It may suit the Calvinist's purpose to frame things way, but it is simply not correct.

Of course it is correct. That is the whole importance of Romans 4:4-5.

God sends Jesus to Calvary and condemns sin in His flesh. He then gives us a resource - the Spirit - which enable us to do what would otherwise be impossible for us to do:

the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so

Jesus' death has solved the sin problem - something that is admittedly mysterious in its actual mechanics has occurred through God's action and God's action alone at Calvary - the power of sin has been broken. And it is not us who gave the Spirit to ourselves - the giving of the Spirit that makes it possible for us to then attain to the future justification that is described for us in Romans 2:7 is a free grace gift of God

Your statements are a completely false theory of the atonement that places one outside the grace of God. Jesus death is not merely solving "the sin problem," but it is substutionary in nature. Christ died in behalf of, or instead of, (huper) the elect.

In fact, and here is where I hope mondar and others will see this, we can know for sure in the present that those who have placed their faith in Jesus in the present will indeed pass this test.

Those who have faith in the substutionary death of Christ pass the test because of anothers righteousness, that is the righteousness of Christ. That is the whole point of the "reckoning" (logozamai) of righteousness in Romans 4. Those who seek to establish their own righteousness have only "debt" not justification. [/quote]

If we indeed place faith in Christ (note this qualifier, I will return to it and explore some subtleties I see in it), there is zero chance - nada chance - that we will not lead the kind of life that will enable us to be pronounced righteous on the day of judgement.

Now here is a point on which I may (repreat may) depart from the views of unred. I fully admit that I have not reached a firm understanding of which of the following is the case although I do lean towards the second of these views:

1. A one-time acceptance of Jesus as Saviour forever and irrevocably binds the Spirit to us and we simply cannot fall away after that. We are still justified by our works on the day of judgment - we cannot make the exceedingly implausible argument that Romans 2 is Paul telling us how we won't be justified.

2. The "placing faith in Jesus" is not really a one-time event but is rather a life-long responsibility that we indeed bear as "free" agents. And, to be clear, this does mean that in some sense we do play a role in determining the final outcome - if if I felt the Scriptures ruled that out, I wouldn't put it forward. Now do not let anyone twist and distort this "concession" to our "contribution" and tell you that this variant means that we "save ourselves" or that we "nullify the cross". That would be an obscene misrepresentation. Even under this view we are but the lowest of worms, unable to atain unto justification without the work of the Spirit. But from the mud, we do indeed, of our own "free" will, need to feebly and continually through life cast our eyes heavenward and be energized by the Spirit who then allows us to walk in the light.

In one sense, I kind of hope that number 1 is the truth, but I think, for Scriptural and what I will call "conceptual" reasons that I hope to explain in a future post, I think number 2 is probably correct. And I suspect that both unred and francedesales believe in number 2. I have more I would like to say about all this, but I will stop for now.

Except to reiterate the obvious - a future justification by works does not imply that the Cross has not accomplished anything or that we can in any remotely plausible sense, claim to be agents that we are the agents of our own justification.

Such a false theory of Justification is a misapplication of one verse. The justification found in Romans 2:13, the verse you are focusing on does not speak of any general works, but specificly of Jewish works related to the Torah. The word "law" in that verse cannot be read any other way in this very Jewish context. Actually that verse is in that place to demonstrate Jewish failure. The Jews assumed that the Torah would save them. Paul is contrasting their hearing of the law, and the perfect keeping of the law. Of course there is again, no atonement in Romans 2:13. Romans 2:13 is talking about establishing your own righteousness apart from Christ. This verse is again one of those verses that you whine about that 0 people can enter heaven by this means.

 

[Drew]

The justification found in Romans 2:13, the verse you are focusing on does not speak of any general works, but specificly of Jewish works related to the Torah. The word "law" in that verse cannot be read any other way in this very Jewish context.

This position is manifestly unsustainable. In the block of relevant text, Paul repeatedly underscores the general applicability of the teaching to both Jews and Gentiles.

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law {Gentiles - my insertion} will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law {Jews - my insertion}. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

mondar, how do you respond to this? Do you still claim that these teachings are related to "Jewish works related to the Torah"?

 

[Orion]

I find it fascinating that two people can have completely differing views, yet can state that the other has no knowledge of what the Bible is saying...... :-?

 

[mondar]

quote by mondar:
Again, unred, you are speaking in foolish tautologies not found in the scriptures. If we have works both before and after salvation, then what has God done?

unred, why don't you forget trying to include the Lord in your theology in some small way. Just come right out and state your self-righteous theology clearly and say you don't need the substitutionary shed blood of Jesus Christ because you think you are already righteous enough.

Romans 4:4 No to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

This post shows me that you don’t have a clue as to what I believe. I’m not sure I can even explain it so you will understand. I can see the concept is a huge puzzle to you. The question, “If we have works both before and after salvation, then what has God done?â€Â, reveals your lack of comprehension and my failure to explain. Let me try again.

No, the post shows your theology is a mess of contradictions and ignorance.

It is by faith in what Jesus taught that we are saved,

Demons believe what Jesus taught, and they tremble. But then there is no atonement for Demons, and there is no substutionary atonement in your words. Such words as the above are not even remotely related to Christianity.

and that faith is worked out by our obedience to those things which he said to do. This salvation by faith in his words was made possible by his substitutionary death on the cross.

Even when you finally use the words "substutionary," it is so vague. It is easy to observe in your words that Christs death is not substutionary. You yourself say that the substution is merely "made possible." So then this substution is a vague, remote, possibility that theoretically might happen in some circumstances if we have enough of or own righteousness to meet the quota to get Christs assistance to help us the rest of the way.

Dont even try to confuse the issue by using words (substutionary) that do not belong in your theology. Christs death is not something substutionary in the sence that this phrase is normally taken. It is something solid for me that I can put my faith in and know Christ will save me. For you in is a theoretical possibility of salvation thrown out to the world for them to help themselves with.

Otherwise, we could not have paid for our sins, except with our death. Once we were dead, we would be dead and not able to rise from the grave. By our faith in Christ and following what he taught, we are born again in Christ and have a new creation waiting to be revealed in which we will rise up from the grave and live forever.

"by our faith in Christ and following what he taught"
The terrible confusion in your theology is so easily apparent. If we are following what he taught, what sin would Christ need to pay for? Again the tautology in your theology is manifest.

"we could not have paid for our sins, except with our death"
Your words here are totally astonishing and convey amazing ignorance. You imply that our own death is somehow propitatory? Let me see that one in the scriptures!

.....some drivel clipped......

As for Romans 4:4, God did not have to do anything for Abraham. God was not obligated to save him. His works and his faith were not essential to God’s well being. God didn’t need Abraham’s faith in him, nor did God need Abraham’s works nor does he need ours either.

Go ahead and drone on about things that are completely unrelated to the discussion. You write like someone is contesting that God has some needs. Not only this, you mention the verse and then dont even refer to the grammar, syntax, or context. If you are going to continue this practice of quoting texts and not even bothering with the language of the text, please quote the readers digest.

The verse is simple,
4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
The one who works for his justification has a reward of debt, not grace. There is no grace from God for this person, only debt.

The reason you dont work with the grammar and syntax of this verse is it does not fit your theology. So you obtusify things to avoid the obvious theology of Romans 4:4. Sad, so sad.

God didn’t owe Abraham anything to pay Abraham for those works that he did. Abraham’s works would not have saved him from death, nor would his faith, nor would have his fame or his riches, because all die in Adam. Because of his faith, God extended grace to Abraham, to allow him to gain eternal life.

Again, such vile use of the text. God "allows Abraham to gain eternal life? Salvation is a gift, not gained or earned (Eph 2:8-9).

God was pleased with Abraham’s faith and he extended the gracious offer that IF Abraham continued to walk in his ways, God would bless him. We know that this was more than an earthly blessing because it culminated with eternal life offered to all the world through Abraham’s own descendant.

Abraham’s faith was his trust in whatever God said and that trust was worked out in obedience to God’s instructions and shown to all by those works. Furthermore, Abraham was not saved by works of the law given to Moses, obviously, since Moses was one of his descendants more than 400 years later. He was not saved by ceremonial works of being circumcised either, because that was the seal of the covenant that was already made between him and God. This is what Paul is getting at in Romans, among other things. God gave Isaac and all of his descendants to fulfill the earthly promise made to Abraham, as far as being a father to a multitude. Of those elect, there were some who believed in God, as Abraham did. In fact, all those who believe are counted as spiritual children of Abraham because of their faith.

You see a phrase like ‘not of works’ and ‘he that works not’ and you make your own doctrine around it instead of reading it in the context it was written in. I say ‘you’ but obviously you did not invent this mess. Nothing personal, Mondar. No offence intended. I see you have taken offence by your comment about beloved57 though:

quote by Mondar:
I thing if he drops out he is wise since your little more then a theological trash talker.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but I guess you’re entitled. I have about as much regard for the Calvinist doctrines you espouse.

Interesting, your sorry! Your sorry for the way I feel? Yet you feel the same way about Calvinism. Yet, this is not trash talk?

 

[mondar]

The justification found in Romans 2:13, the verse you are focusing on does not speak of any general works, but specificly of Jewish works related to the Torah. The word "law" in that verse cannot be read any other way in this very Jewish context.

This position is manifestly unsustainable. In the block of relevant text, Paul repeatedly underscores the general applicability of the teaching to both Jews and Gentiles.

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law {Gentiles - my insertion} will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law {Jews - my insertion}. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

mondar, how do you respond to this? Do you still claim that these teachings are related to "Jewish works related to the Torah"?

Certainly I think the works are related to the Torah. In fact the word occurs right in verse 13. The word "torah" is hebrew for Law. The greek word "nomou" is the greek word for Law. In verse 13, what other possibility is their for the reading of the word "law." In your post above, in verse 12 you agree that the word "law" refers to the Jewish Law. Gentiles sin "without the law" (Torah) and the Jews sin with the law (Torah). The same word is used in verse 13. What law do you think is being heard in verse 13? This same law is the law that must be obeyed. Right?

Drew, what law do you think is being referred to in verses 12-13?

 

[Drew]

I find it fascinating that two people can have completely differing views, yet can state that the other has no knowledge of what the Bible is saying...... :-?

Hello Orion:

I am glad that there are some people other than mondar, unred, and myself who are reading this thread. At the risk of seeming defensive, I do not believe that I have ever claimed that any other poster "has no knowledge of what the Bible is saying". But that is not really that important.

What is important is that people are able to present their arguments for their respective positions. The more information we have at our disposal - the more viewpoints we hear, the more likely we are to arrive at the best knowledge of the truth that we can. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should be charitable and assume that posters genuinely believe their arguments to be correct and are not deliberately trying to deceive others.

In any event, I think that one does not need to be a genius to discern when posters slip across the line from fair and open debate and start to get mean-spirited.

And now, I am interested, Orion. Do you have an opinion on this matter?

 

[Orion]

Drew, I didn't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but it just seems like too often (not just in this thread) there are two opposing sides in a theological debate, and both sides believe that they have scriptural backing and that the other is "misinterpretting passages", or something like that. Why isn't it more clear cut as to what is right? I am not sure. But what is clear is that this isn't the first theological debate with nearly 180 degree departure from their opponent, and won't be the last.

As for my views, I just can't see there being a "salvation for the elect", meaning that God chose to call "THESE people", but not "those others". God chooses people who could be USED for a purpose, but if God loves everyone the same way, then there will be no favoratism or God will be an unfair and unjust being.

This has been on my mind as of late because it seems to be the Christian doctrine (maybe just in my church/denomination) that Jesus's blood only has power for those who believe. If you don't believe, that means Jesus's blood has no power, then. I personally feel that, when Jesus died on the cross, he did so for ALL sin committed or that will be committed. . . . because "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." And the purpose of that death was to remove sins FOR those who were yet sinners. Jesus himself, forgave people who didn't ask him for it, but showed a humblenss and a faith, like the woman caught in adultery. She never asks for forgiveness, but receives it anyway, because Jesus loves even the sinner! Her task was to "go and sin no more".

I think we are much harder on people than Jesus would ever be. :roll: