Is Calvinism of the Bible?

[Drew]

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?

I am glad that you asked this question. But first, I must reiterate what I believe to be indisputable - the twice-repeated, direct and unambiguous, explicit declaration by Paul that the scope of those being addressed in verse 7 (and I am now not talking about verse 13) includes every human being - both Jew and Gentile. So we know that the "justification" referred to in verse 7 is universal in its applicability. In respect to verse 7, Paul underscores that the judgement is in respect to every human being, both Jew and Gentile.

Verse 13 is a different story (although in past posts, I have erred in not drawing the distinction). The reason: in verse 12, the Law - the Torah - is introduced.

The question then becomes: Who falls under the scope of verse 13 given that, indeed as mondar has stated, the "Torah" is what is being referred to here. We are no longer talking about a general judgement that has not been explicitly connected to Torah (like in verse 7). The Torah has been introduced as the reference point and we need to see verse 13 in terms of Torah.

Can we do so, and not restrict its scope of application to the Jews? Yes, I think we can. So how can it be that this Torah has applicability to Jews and Gentile?

I am going to exercize my right to - gasp - change my mind about how I represented verse 12 in my previous post. I will now rework my "insertion" in respect to verse 12:

12All who sin apart from the law {Gentile non-Christians - my insertion} will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law {Jews and Gentile Christians - my insertion}.

How do I justify (no pun intended) this move? By reference verses 14 and 15:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts

Gentile Christians do not possess the law by nature (by birth). But they are now, as a result of the covenant renewal, in the strange position of "doing the law", since the Spirit (reference Romans 8) has written the 'work of Torah' on their hearts.

I believe that this solution "works" in the sense that it honours what I think is beyond doubt - Romans 2:6-13 includes all of humanity in it scope - there will be future justification by works for all.

It also honours mondar's statement, with which I agree, that "Law" is essentially Torah. The Gentile Christians have Torah written on their hearts, even though they were not born with it.

I wish to state that this view of mine is preliminary.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar:
No, the post shows your theology is a mess of contradictions and ignorance.

Well, I guess that settles it. Mondar has spoken. Let me just run away and hide on a nicer bored, I mean, board. Ahhh…no.

quote by mondar:
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.

I had no idea that demons believed in what Jesus taught and they follow him! See, I thought they were in rebellion against God, and followed Satan, the father of lies. I really must be stupid to think we can be saved by believing and following Christ then, if it doesn’t save the demons. I’m sure glad you pointed that out. Wow. Such wisdom.

quote by mondar:
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 it is a theoretical possibility of salvation thrown out to the world for them to help themselves with.

Again, how could I be so blind. Maybe I’m confused by words like ‘should not’ and ‘might’ here: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. I’m sure you can give me the grammatical solution for my ignorance. Don’t bother. I’ve heard it.

quote by mondar:
unred typo wrote: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.

I have repeatedly said that we cannot be without sin but if we are walking in the light as he is in the light, the blood cleanses us of all sin. There is a difference between getting spattered with mud from a pig, and getting in the pen and wallowing in it with him, Mondar. Again you show you cannot be discerning in reading scripture but constantly take it to extremes. Is this a character flaw among proponents of Calvinism?

quote by mondar:
(unred typo: )"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 propitiatory? Let me see that one in the scriptures!

Well, let’s see, if I only sin once, my death should cover that sin. But the problem is, I’m dead now. I’ve equaled the score but I’m not going to get eternal life, I’m just going to die for my own sin. The soul that sins, it shall die… not die and then be given eternal life. If you eat of the tree of the midst of the garden, the day you eat of it, you shall surely die. How many scriptures do you want?

quote by mondar:

unred typo wrote:.....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.â€Â

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.

The connection is simply that by working for our justification, we are not doing anything that we can demand payment for. Abraham didn’t regard his works as making God indebted to pay him, as if God should owe him for doing good works. IOW, normally, when a person works for payment, his pay is not reckoned as a gift of grace, but as owed to him, while the person who receives justification when he hasn’t worked to earn that justification but out of belief that God will do what he promised, it is his faith that is counted unto him for righteousness.

Abraham’s works were not in any way needed for God’s well being. God was pleased with Abraham’s faith and subsequent obedience and it was not merely that God needed him to do some good works for him down here on earth, that he was willing to hire him to do. I don’t know why you can’t understand that but then, you are the one who is constantly missing the obvious.

quote by mondar:
unred typo wrote: 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).

If I give you an education, does that mean you don’t have to work to receive it? If I give you food to save you from starvation, does that mean you don’t have to eat it? If I give you clothing to keep you from freezing, does that mean you don’t have to put it on?

quote by mondar:
unred typo: “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.â€Â


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

As usual, you can only see things one way, to your own advantage. What I meant was, that I’m sorry you feel that beloved57 should drop out because my theology is ‘trash talk’. I think Calvinism is as bad as you think my theology is, but I believe it’s better to discuss why, than to get all huffy and leave. Get huffy all you want, it doesn’t bother me. But please stay and discuss the issues.

 

[Drew]

I think it is important for we "free-will" believin', "we play at least some role in our justification" types to give an account as to why we think that it is coherent to also claim that credit for that justification does indeed belong to God. Even though I think such objections fall apart on analysis, I can at least empathize in my gut with statements like "if we play any role at all in our justification, that means we achieve salvation by our works".

I am not going to dispute that there are texts that basically say "its all God's work" in respect to our justification. I do think, however, that it is entirely reasonable to think of a gift that we simply accept as not really contradicting those teachings.

In defense of this, I will argue that to maintain a conceptual distinction between us and God, we really need to "retain" this element of free will participation in the working out of our justification. In other words, if we deny any free will participation on our part, we cannot legitimately say that we are anything more than "pawns" or simply an extension of God Himself. We are, after all, creatures, we are not part of God himself. If God manipulates us in a manner where we are entirely impotent to resist or co-operate, we become no different than a rock that God decides to send crashing down a mountainside.

I speculate that the writers of Scripture take it more as less as a "given" that we are indeed creatures that are distinct from our Creator. And that distinction dissolves away if we start talking about God manipulating us in a manner that we cannot resist. Could God create a Universe where He fully and sufficiently manipulates everything? Of course He could, but then it could not be properly said of God that He has made any creatures in such a universe.

Just as the concept of "moral responsibility" entails implicit notions of "freedom of contrary choice" so it is that the concept of "creatures created in the image of God" entails freedom to co-operate with or resist the actions of God. If we did not have that capability, we would not be creatures, we would be something else (like rocks, water, trees, etc).

In a universe with a God and creatures created in the image of God, we are as much indebted to God for our justification as we possibly can be, without doing violence to this "Creator - creature" distinction.

 

[Devekut]

Good post Drew. Pre-destination in the Calvinist manner robs the gospel of its power.

If I were hanging off the side of a cliff by a branch, about to fall to my death and a person extends their hand out to pull me up, surely we would not say that I saved myself simply because I accepted that person's offering and took hold of them?

In the same way, man co-operates in his salvation. Yet this co-operation is impossible unless God first extends to us His grace. It is still God who has scaled the cliff and pulled us to safety, yet it is also man who must, of his own free will, accept that help.

 

[beloved57]

Good post Drew. Pre-destination in the Calvinist manner robs the gospel of its power.

If I were hanging off the side of a cliff by a branch, about to fall to my death and a person extends their hand out to pull me up, surely we would not say that I saved myself simply because I accepted that person's offering and took hold of them?

In the same way, man co-operates in his salvation. Yet this co-operation is impossible unless God first extends to us His grace. It is still God who has scaled the cliff and pulled us to safety, yet it is also man who must, of his own free will, accept that help.

This concept is unbiblical , its works..
If I extend a rope to a drowned man in the water, he will not accept it..for he is dead..

 

[Drew]

This concept is unbiblical , its works..
If I extend a rope to a drowned man in the water, he will not accept it..for he is dead..

I have never found this argument to work, since I believe that the relevant scriptures address the state of being dead in one's sin. This is not the same as being "cognitively" dead as well - being unable to think about one's own state.

I can be dead in my sins - in the sense of being on a path for condemnation and judgement, and still be "mentally aware" that I am indeed in such a state.

If we are going to take this "dead" thing seriously, lets go whole hog and claim that the unredeemed are actually dead in every respect. While that argument may work for certain civil servants I know, there are a lot of unredeemed people who are alive in body and in mind. So let's be careful how we interpret "dead".

 

[unred typo]

quote by Drew on Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:48 pm
I think it is important for we "free-will" believin', "we play at least some role in our justification" types to give an account as to why we think that it is coherent to also claim that credit for that justification does indeed belong to God. Even though I think such objections fall apart on analysis, I can at least empathize in my gut with statements like "if we play any role at all in our justification, that means we achieve salvation by our works".

I am not going to dispute that there are texts that basically say "its all God's work" in respect to our justification. I do think, however, that it is entirely reasonable to think of a gift that we simply accept as not really contradicting those teachings.

In defense of this, I will argue that to maintain a conceptual distinction between us and God, we really need to "retain" this element of free will participation in the working out of our justification. In other words, if we deny any free will participation on our part, we cannot legitimately say that we are anything more than "pawns" or simply an extension of God Himself. We are, after all, creatures, we are not part of God himself. If God manipulates us in a manner where we are entirely impotent to resist or co-operate, we become no different than a rock that God decides to send crashing down a mountainside.

I speculate that the writers of Scripture take it more as less as a "given" that we are indeed creatures that are distinct from our Creator. And that distinction dissolves away if we start talking about God manipulating us in a manner that we cannot resist. Could God create a Universe where He fully and sufficiently manipulates everything? Of course He could, but then it could not be properly said of God that He has made any creatures in such a universe.

Just as the concept of "moral responsibility" entails implicit notions of "freedom of contrary choice" so it is that the concept of "creatures created in the image of God" entails freedom to co-operate with or resist the actions of God. If we did not have that capability, we would not be creatures, we would be something else (like rocks, water, trees, etc).

In a universe with a God and creatures created in the image of God, we are as much indebted to God for our justification as we possibly can be, without doing violence to this "Creator - creature" distinction.

My view is rather common and homely by theological standards. Some might even call it a “tautological mess of vile foolishness, contradictions and trash talk ignorance†if they were so inclined to be huffy about it. :wink: Maybe you can at least “empathize in your gut with statements like "if we play any role at all in our justification, that means we achieve salvation by our works",†Drew, but I don‘t really have the stomach for patronizing such absurdity. You have far more tolerance than I do, but then, I have gotten more cynical and crotchety with every passing year and I must be twice your age.

In regard to your call to give an account as to why we "free-will" believin', "we play at least some role in our justification" types think that it is coherent to also claim that credit for that justification does indeed belong to God, there isn’t much to explain. (LOL...if you got through that sentence, you shouldn't have any trouble with the rest of this! :o )

God provides the plan of salvation, ( the incarnation and the gospel ) the means of salvation, (the blood of his own Son ) and his Holy Spirit to lead us, aid and encourage us into love and good works, to name a few things to credit him with.

The point that is even more succinctly important is that salvation isn’t something he was obligated to do. Adam rebelled against God and he deserved death without any option for eternal life. God offers man this way of salvation out of his love and mercy, not out of debt to pay for works of righteousness that we have done that he really doesn‘t need us to do. What can a man give God that he can’t speak into existence, without even lifting his little finger? Think about it. The one and only thing God can’t make happen is a free-will act.

 

[Drew]

I have gotten more cynical and crotchety with every passing year and I must be twice your age.

Really? Then you would have to 98 !

Anyhoo, I will probably respond more substantially later....

 

[unred typo]

I have gotten more cynical and crotchety with every passing year and I must be twice your age.

Really? Then you would have to 98 !

Anyhoo, I will probably respond more substantially later....

98? I should live so long! :-D OK, I’m not quite twice your age… where did I get that idea? Somehow way back along, I got you mixed up with a brilliant, idealistic college student. Sorry about that… you can keep the 'brilliant, idealistic’ label if you want though, it still applies, in a more mature way.
8-)

 

[mondar]

This concept is unbiblical , its works..
If I extend a rope to a drowned man in the water, he will not accept it..for he is dead..

I have never found this argument to work, since I believe that the relevant scriptures address the state of being dead in one's sin. This is not the same as being "cognitively" dead as well - being unable to think about one's own state.

I can be dead in my sins - in the sense of being on a path for condemnation and judgement, and still be "mentally aware" that I am indeed in such a state.

If we are going to take this "dead" thing seriously, lets go whole hog and claim that the unredeemed are actually dead in every respect. While that argument may work for certain civil servants I know, there are a lot of unredeemed people who are alive in body and in mind. So let's be careful how we interpret "dead".

Drew, relating the word "dead" to "being on the path to condemnation and judgment" is not exegetical. It is not taken from the text. The concept of death in that passage is explained in the context. In verse 4 you can see the phrase "by nature children of wrath." When Christ made us alive, he changed our nature. So then, human nature in Eph 2 is "dead" because by nature we are children of wrath. This results in our past walk being according to all those things that cooperated with our nature.

beloved57 had the right idea. In our nature of wrath and sin, we will not accept any help from God. That was the point. Of course you can take any analogy to absurd proportions. That is not dealing with the analogy related to the text. Neither does such absurdities present a refutation of the analogy.

 

[beloved57]

Death or being dead is seperation..

physical death is when the body is seperated from this physical existence
spiritual death is when the spiritual aspect of man is seperated from the life of God
eternal death is when the wicked will be eternally seperated from God

The natural man is seperated from the life of God by nature...

eph 4

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:


col And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

The word alienated serves the same purpose as seperation..

This is describing a picture of spiritual death..

and one more..see how paul descibes us by nature..

eph 5

8For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

Notice it says we were sometimes darkness , not in darkness , this describes our death to God..

So a person who is darkness , alienated from the life of God and all that spiritual death entails, cannot do anything to become light in the lord , it takes a miracle of Divine grace as in the beginning..gen 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Ironically paul uses this expression to convey just how the gospel is communicated to the elect..

2 cor 4

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

[unred typo]

quote by beloved57 :
This concept is unbiblical , its works..
If I extend a rope to a drowned man in the water, he will not accept it..for he is dead..

quote by Mondar:
beloved57 had the right idea. In our nature of wrath and sin, we will not accept any help from God. That was the point. Of course you can take any analogy to absurd proportions. That is not dealing with the analogy related to the text. Neither does such absurdities present a refutation of the analogy.

Mondar, you and beloved57 have taken the analogy to absurdities. 'Dead' is a figure of speech. It doesn’t mean unable to accept any help from God. If it did, please explain the following verse:

Ephesians 5:14
Wherefore he says, Awake you that sleeps, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.

That’s just one to account for. There’s more where that came from.
:-D

 

[beloved57]

Thats just like telling lazarus to awake out of the sleep of death, its still takes a miracle of Gods grace, you have not addressed not one verse of scripture I have given..you are so shallow lol

 

[unred typo]

Death or being dead is seperation..

physical death is when the body is seperated from this physical existence
spiritual death is when the spiritual aspect of man is seperated from the life of God
eternal death is when the wicked will be eternally seperated from God

The natural man is seperated from the life of God by nature...

eph 4

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:


col And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

The word alienated serves the same purpose as seperation..

This is describing a picture of spiritual death..

and one more..see how paul descibes us by nature..

eph 5

8For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

Notice it says we were sometimes darkness , not in darkness , this describes our death to God..

So a person who is darkness , alienated from the life of God and all that spiritual death entails, cannot do anything to become light in the lord , it takes a miracle of Divine grace as in the beginning..gen 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Ironically paul uses this expression to convey just how the gospel is communicated to the elect..

2 cor 4

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

The problem is that you want to make salvation exclusive just to you and your ilk, while the Bible extends it to all who choose to obey and follow Christ. You can only see that everyone is 'totally depraved’ but the Bible makes a distinction between those who follow the Spirit in their heart and conscience and those who don’t:

John 3:19-21
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21But he that does truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Not only do those who do truth come to Christ, but Jesus calls all sinners to repentance:

Luke 15:7
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repents, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.


Mark 2:17
When Jesus heard it, he said unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Did you notice there were also '99' just persons, which needed no repentance? They were those that were living by the word of God already. This is not the Pharisees and scribes that were sinning hypocrites, btw, but the common people who received his word gladly. Mark 12:37

 

[mondar]

quote by beloved57 :
This concept is unbiblical , its works..
If I extend a rope to a drowned man in the water, he will not accept it..for he is dead..

[quote:bff37]quote by Mondar:
beloved57 had the right idea. In our nature of wrath and sin, we will not accept any help from God. That was the point. Of course you can take any analogy to absurd proportions. That is not dealing with the analogy related to the text. Neither does such absurdities present a refutation of the analogy.

Mondar, you and beloved57 have taken the analogy to absurdities. [/quote:bff37]
LOL, where have I head this said before?

unred, do you even read and follow the posts? I doubt you could even find what I was replying to. Since you dont have the foggiest notion of why I said that someone took beloved57s analogy to absurd proportions, you obviously are not even following the thought progression of the conversation.

'Dead' is a figure of speech.

Again, what your write is such drivel. Can you show me where either beloved57 or I suggested that the term "dead" is not a figure of speech?

It doesn’t mean unable to accept any help from God.

That is exactly what the term means in Ephesians 2:1. I have already presented evidence strait out of the text to demonstrate that the term "dead" is related to the phrase in 2:3 "and were by nature the children of wrath." Did you not read that post? You fail to understand what is being said? We were "dead" until God "made us alive." He made us alive by changing our nature so that we are not "children of wrath."

If it did, please explain the following verse:

Ephesians 5:14
Wherefore he says, Awake you that sleeps, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.

That’s just one to account for. There’s more where that came from. :-D

Oh my, the terrible unred has more verses. If you keep asking "what about this verse, and what about that verse. Surely somewhere you can find some minor issue to deal and avoid reading the term "dead" in Eph 2:1 in the context in which it exists. OF course it is true that every word in scripture should be defined by its context, but I doubt you will grasp that concept.

I know your methods of bible study. If you can find some obscure verse that does not neccessarily have the context to demonstrate the meaning of the word "dead." You read your non-Christian concepts into the word in this other more obscure context, and then read that meaning back into the original context of Eph 2:1. Then you can make Eph 2:1 to say something completely opposite of what it is actually saying.

So after all that, tell me unred, do you have the foggiest idea what is being said in Eph 4. Do you even understand my small discussion of defining words by their context? Can you demonstrate from the context how the word "dead" in Eph 4:13 demonstrates that "children of disobedience" (Eph 2:2; 5:6) are not in rebellion against God by their own sinful, wrathful, rebellious nature? Actually, you cannot. The context is not about the children of wrath and disobedience (yes, they are mentioned in the context) but the context is an exhortation to the children of light to "walk" as "children of the light" (4:8). Verse 14 is then a quote in which we are called from the dead to the light by Christ. There is no defining context for the word "dead."

The word "dead, in the context of Eph 2:1 is best defined by the context of Eph 2:1, not some other context.

 

[unred typo]

quote by beloved57 on Sun Dec 02:
Thats just like telling lazarus to awake out of the sleep of death, its still takes a miracle of Gods grace, you have not addressed not one verse of scripture I have given..you are so shallow lol

OK, I can agree with that sentence, or rather the first part to the comma. ( I may be shallow, but I’m not SO shallow, lol) God wants all to awake from death and calls all men everywhere to come forth out of their prison house of death to follow Christ and he will give them eternal life. The doors of the prison are open... wake up and follow Christ out into the light of life!

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 For the love of Christ constrains us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent:

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

What you fail to understand is that God has extended grace to all sinners, not just a few lucky, favored ones. There is no favoritism with God. He is going to judge all by their works, impartially, taking into account the amount of light each person was given. To whom much is given, much will be required. One of the things you will be judged by is how merciful you were. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Now there is some real power in that verse, don’t you agree? Doesn’t that just make you want to be merciful?

 

[beloved57]

God only Loves certain people and christ died for only certain people and they are called the elect..

 

[unred typo]

quote by beloved57:
God only Loves certain people and christ died for only certain people and they are called the elect..

Just curious, are you one of the elect?

 

[Drew]

This is the first in a series of posts where I will mount an argument against a certain interpretation of Romans 4, verses 4 and 5. Here are these two verses:

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

To be entirely forthright, I should acknowledge that my argument has been significantly informed by the teaching of British theologian NT Wright.

More specifically, it is widely believed that in the above verses (really verses 1 through to 8) Paul is addressing the issue of people attempting to earn justification by “good works†and is saying, “no, you cannot be justified that wayâ€Â. I believe that posters such as mondar hold this view and use it to interpret Romans 2:7 as expressing a path to justification that no one will, in fact, take. Here is Romans 2:7:

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

For reasons that have been provided in other posts, I think such a reading of 2:7 is highly implausible and makes Paul out to be a very confused and poor writer if he indeed intends us to believe that no one will actually be justified in accordance with 2:7.

I will argue that the entire book of Romans, and more particularly material in chapters 1 to 4, makes this “we are justified by faith with no reference to works†reading of Romans 4:3-8 to be implausible. By contrast, an interpretation that is far more coherent with the rest of Romans is available, one that allows us to take Romans 2:7 as not describing a set with zero members.

In very brief overview, I will argue that Paul is not addressing “good works†generally here, but is addressing works in a specifically “works of Torah†sense. To give a flavour of the case I will try to make, I will be arguing that in verses 1 through 8, Paul is addressing the following question, which embodies the intent of the question of Romans 4:1:

“If, in accordance with the covenant, Abraham is the father of the new covenant people of God (with both Jews and Gentiles in it), are these covenant people to consider Abraham to be their father according to the flesh�

In Romans 4:2-8, Paul answers “noâ€Â, since “works of Torah†are clearly not involved in demarcating Abraham (or David) as being a member of God’s new covenant family.

Unfortnately, I can see no way to compress this argument down into a short “one-post†form.

 

[mondar]

This is the first in a series of posts where I will mount an argument against a certain interpretation of Romans 4, verses 4 and 5. Here are these two verses:

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

To be entirely forthright, I should acknowledge that my argument has been significantly informed by the teaching of British theologian NT Wright.

More specifically, it is widely believed that in the above verses (really verses 1 through to 8) Paul is addressing the issue of people attempting to earn justification by “good works†and is saying, “no, you cannot be justified that wayâ€Â. I believe that posters such as mondar hold this view and use it to interpret Romans 2:7 as expressing a path to justification that no one will, in fact, take. Here is Romans 2:7:

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

For reasons that have been provided in other posts, I think such a reading of 2:7 is highly implausible and makes Paul out to be a very confused and poor writer if he indeed intends us to believe that no one will actually be justified in accordance with 2:7.

I will argue that the entire book of Romans, and more particularly material in chapters 1 to 4, makes this “we are justified by faith with no reference to works†reading of Romans 4:3-8 to be implausible. By contrast, an interpretation that is far more coherent with the rest of Romans is available, one that allows us to take Romans 2:7 as not describing a set with zero members.

In very brief overview, I will argue that Paul is not addressing “good works†generally here, but is addressing works in a specifically “works of Torah†sense. To give a flavour of the case I will try to make, I will be arguing that in verses 1 through 8, Paul is addressing the following question, which embodies the intent of the question of Romans 4:1:

“If, in accordance with the covenant, Abraham is the father of the new covenant people of God (with both Jews and Gentiles in it), are these covenant people to consider Abraham to be their father according to the flesh�

In Romans 4:2-8, Paul answers “noâ€Â, since “works of Torah†are clearly not involved in demarcating Abraham (or David) as being a member of God’s new covenant family.

Drew,
So in 2:13 where the greek word nomos occurs (The hebrew equivelant would be "torah") you deny that it is the law. Yet in Romans 4, where the word "words" occurs, you say it is the law. Why? Because the context demands it. Nada. The word law is not used in the context of Chapter 4 until vese 13. In Chapter 4 the context is about the reckoning of an outside source of righteousness. This imputation of righteousness simply cannot be based upon our works, or it would not be an imputation of righteousness.

In any case, even if 4:4-5 were referring to the works of the law, it would not demonstrate your argument. The law was the perfect moral code. The law of Moses is a vastly superior moral code compared to any that you NT Wright might invent. If any works justify, the works of the law would be the first to justify. But, the point is, no works justify, not the works of the law, neither your made up works whatever they are.

Also, I want to mention that whatever translation you are using, it is inventing words in the text that simply are not in the original.

Finally, I am curious, are you a sacramentalist?