"Election"

I have always held to similar believes in regard to culpability but as I've stated in other posts I'm examining this doctrine more fully, so bare with me.

You say all of this like one who just took a theology course on the subject, I mean with great assurance and conviction but you really don't state any support texts for your beliefs. How do you know what Lydia or Cornelious knew or in what manner God would have judged them prior to coming to the knowledge of the gospel. The verse I quoted, which you seemed to skip, does seem to indicate that sin in ignorance isn't counted as sin, just as if the tree in the garden wasn't ever forbidden there never would have been the first sin. It takes a rule to make a rule breaker. Thoughts?

 

npetreley,

I think I agree with your statements.

When we get to Heaven we will probably view lost souls as the real enemies of Jesus that they really were. We may notice our lost loved ones, but then ' . . . God will wipe away all tears from our eyes.' [Revelation 7:17c]

The only things that I think we can do is to witness to them and pray that the Holy Spirit will convict and convince them to yield to Jesus.

Regards,
Ray

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ian Major:

Quite right. Here goes:
Matt.10: 28And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

What makes you think 'destroy' means annihilate, rather than the experience of the Second Death, suffering in Gehenna, the outer darkness, where the worm does not die nor is the fire quenched?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that Sodom and Gomorrah were "destroyed" that same eternal fire AND "are exhibited as examples of the Punishment of Eternal Fire"


You also have the problem that this sovles nothing for the Calvinist problem exemplified by "Sure I could IF I had cared to".

(Recall this is where Nick was trying to Argue that Arminians are stuck with that same problem once the torment is unnending). Nick's argument is a good one - except in the case of those Arminians that take this particular view of Matt 10 and the eternal fire that really "destroyed" Sodom and Gomorrah.

Secondly - EVEN Calvinists do not argue that those who "can kill the body but not the soul" are in fact killing your "future spiritual body". So the "body" spoken of in Matt 10 is THIS one.

Even Calvinists will admit that "context" is key to exegesis.

IF BOTH THIS body AND your real soul are "Destroyed" as Matt 10 states --- AND you admit that this corruptible body IS subject to REAL destruction - then you are stuck with the soul also "really" being destroyed RATHER then having "eternal life".

In Christ,

Bob

 

That post on Romans 2 ( Click Here ) - provides the best review by Paul of HOW those "without scripture" are saved.

This is very much tied to the Holy Spirit "Convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" as well as the "DRAWING of all mankind" unto Christ.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan,

I read through your post on Romans 2 and I'm not sure I followed all of it. But it seems to me that Pauls point is that all men have the law in some sense (either given by Moses or written on their hearts through conscience). And Romans 3:10 concludes that all are declared guilty by that standard of righteousness, then verse 21 introduces a righteousness that is not through the law but through faith by which all man can be justified.

So, no one is righteous, no not one in regard to the law/conscience of deeds, but some are righteous in regard to faith. Abraham is the example Paul uses, "He believed and it was credited to him as righteousness." People are justified by faith which expresses itself in deeds. It has never changed.

That is where you may have been going but I didn't follow. Could you comment?

 

This is a major breakthrough and I should probably just rejoice and stop here. But...

I like how you put that. Yes, that's what we can do. We can witness to them. And we can pray that the Holy Spirit will convict and convince them to yield to Jesus.

Now what means does the Holy Spirit use to convict them and convince them to yield to Jesus? It means that the Holy Spirit must get inside and open their ears and eyes, so that they will hear with their ears, and see with their eyes the real truth, come face to face with their fallen condition, despair of it, and embrace their salvation with joy and adoration for the One who provided it.

I encourage everyone to pray for that. That Jesus will take hold of that person and claim him/her for Himself, and by the Holy Spirit, bring him/her into His love and presence.

 

Paul gives BOTH the succeeding cases AND the failing cases in Romans 2.

His Romans 2 appeal to "perseverence" is repeated by Paul and Christ in the NT.

His Romans 2 statement about judgment according to "deeds done in the body" is repeated in Matt 7 and 25 and 2Cor 5 and Rev 20 and...

Paul states in Romans 2:16 that "this IS the Gospel"

In Romans 2:3-4 we find that the entire dicussion is "in the context of the Goodness of God that leads us to repentance".

In other words - Paul is telling the truth in Romans 2 - the fact that under the Gospel that God has created - some go to heaven and some go to hell.

But in vs 13-16 combined with vs 26 we see Paul appealing to "the extreme" case of a Gentile who does NOT have the Bible "doing instinctively" the deeds/works of the law and SHOWING the law Written on the heart (as Paul mentions again in 2Cor 3 and Heb 8 regarding the Gospel). So His statement that "it is not the Hearers that are Just but the doers WILL BE Justified" is pointing to future justification, future judgment - when according to Paul's "Gospel - God will judge mankind through Christ".

Interesting that this extreme case "passes" while many Jews who DO have scripture - fail because they fail to SHOW that the law is written on their heart (the New Birth, the New Creation).

Translated to today - that means that there are some with NO Bible that are in - while many Bible-having Christians are out. We would all do well to sit up and take notice.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Romans 2 Paul shows the ultimate end of mankind (both the good scenarios and the bad) accomplished through the Gospel. (Rejection or acceptance of it).

In Romans 3 Paul shows the inner workings of human nature for ALL mankind - showing our desperate need of the Gospel remedy. He points not to the future justification of Matt 7 and Romans 2:13-16 and 2Cor 5 -- but to past justication by faith alone APART from the works of the law.

He then concludes with "Do we then make void the Law of God? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31 showing the harmoneous link between chapter 2 and chapter 3.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Please comment on how Paul concludes this portion of the discourse in Romans 3:10 by declaring that no one is righteous.

I believe that he has been showing that all are guilty. The Jews are guilty because they have the law and still disobey. The Gentiles have the law written on their hearts or a conscience and they disobey that, so all fall short of God's glory and would therefore be justly condemned. BUT there is a righteousness being revealed from heaven that is through faith as ch. 3 verse 21 introduces. By this righteousness we can be justified. right?

 

Skandelon said
You say all of this like one who just took a theology course on the subject, I mean with great assurance and conviction but you really don't state any support texts for your beliefs. How do you know what Lydia or Cornelious knew or in what manner God would have judged them prior to coming to the knowledge of the gospel. The verse I quoted, which you seemed to skip, does seem to indicate that sin in ignorance isn't counted as sin, just as if the tree in the garden wasn't ever forbidden there never would have been the first sin. It takes a rule to make a rule breaker. Thoughts?

Regarding Cornelius, surely his description by Luke and the Jewish brethren show that he had both the revelation of the Holy Scriptures and directly of God. Acts 10: 1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. 22And they said, "Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you."

Here's your verse in context, John 9: 39And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." 40Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also?" 41Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, "We see.' Therefore your sin remains.

The meaning is similar to our Lord's saying that He is not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. He did not mean that some are righteous and in no need of repentance - rather that the Pharisees had ruled themselves out of salvation by denying their unrighteousness. Likewise here, they deny their blindness.

Ignorance mitigates sin, but does not remove it - proof: Luke 12: 47And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few.

This would suggest that the 'rule' should have been known, and that the ignorance of it comes from a suppression of the truth, as in Rom.1.

In Him

Ian

 

Bob Ryan said
Note that Sodom and Gomorrah were "destroyed" that same eternal fire AND "are exhibited as examples of the Punishment of Eternal Fire"

Exactly so. So by your theory they are gone, gone, gone - for eternal fire has annihilated them. But Christ tells us that the Day of Judgement is to bring Sodom and Gomorrah further punishment! That suggests to me that their physical destruction was but Part One of an eternity of punishment. Their dead bodies are going to be resurrected, joined to their wicked spirits (presently suffering in Hades) and then be cast into Gehenna, to burn forever.

You also have the problem that this sovles nothing for the Calvinist problem exemplified by "Sure I could IF I had cared to".

That's not a problem for Calvinists. We bow before His righteous judgement.

Secondly - EVEN Calvinists do not argue that those who "can kill the body but not the soul" are in fact killing your "future spiritual body". So the "body" spoken of in Matt 10 is THIS one.

Not sure of your meaning. But the body men can kill is this fleshly one. The body Christ will destroy is the resurrected body of the wicked person. But eternally destroy, not snuff out in a moment.

IF BOTH THIS body AND your real soul are "Destroyed" as Matt 10 states --- AND you admit that this corruptible body IS subject to REAL destruction - then you are stuck with the soul also "really" being destroyed RATHER then having "eternal life".

Not so - the body the wicked are in today will live again. Not like our glorious body, but both the glorious and the corrupt will be related to their former existence, else there is no resurrection. You cannot get spiritual annihilation out of physical death - the analogy is not there. And, of course, the proper term for unending punishment is 'eternal death', not 'eternal life'.

In Him

Ian

 

Npetreley said
Annihilation is more emotionally comfortable when paired with any doctrine except universalism, where it is not needed. There's nothing uniquely satisfying about Arminianism/Pelagianism and annihilation vs. Calvinism+annihilation.

I know what you mean in this wider context. I was focussing on the 'fairness' and 'kindness' of the Arminian mind. They substitute their own concept of fairness and kindness for God's, and that makes annihilation a logical bolt-hole.

In Him

Ian

 

Yes, I see what you mean.

 

The argument he makes in Romans 3 is correct. So is the argument he makes in Romans 2.

In Romans 3 Paul describes total depravity APART from the Gospel.

In Romans 2 Paul describes the "Gospel Result" that SOME are lost and SOME are saved. He then shows in detail the difference in the lives of those lost vs those saved and declares that this is the result of the future Gospel judgment of Christ -- See vs 11-16 in chapter 2.

In Romans 3 he shows ALL are guilty and in need of salvation.

In Romans 2 he does NOT show that ALL miss out on heaven under the Gospel. Rather he shows SOME get eternal life and SOME don't.

BOTH of his statements are true - as it turns out.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan said
Note that Sodom and Gomorrah were "destroyed" that same eternal fire AND "are exhibited as examples of the Punishment of Eternal Fire"

Actually this is what God's Word said of them and being "exhibited as undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" IF I made it appear as though I wrote the book of Jude - I appologize.

Do you not agree with that text of scripture?

Indeed. But rather than construe this as a contradiction OR as an excuse to water down the text of Jude - it is much more consistent to believe it. God is NOT going to build the buildings of Sodom and Gomorrah. The PEOPLE of that city will be raised in the Rev 20 "2nd resurrection" to suffer the 2nd death. And as Jude points out - this is when "God Convicts ALL the ungodly of ALL their ungodly deeds".

It is really - literally true. All of it.

An interesting suggestion. However what it says is that although the City and all its inhabitants were REALLY destroyed by eternal fire - YET the inhabitants (not the city) will be raised again. The city is forever destroyed - for all eternity so when God said they were "destroyed" by eternal fire - we can believe it.


Bob said -- You also have the problem that this sovles nothing for the Calvinist problem exemplified by "Sure I could IF I had cared to".

So then you happily exault that result JUST as the scenario describes the Calvinist doing. It is a great opportunity to praise God -- just as you say.

May I quote you?


Bob said Secondly - EVEN Calvinists do not argue that those who "can kill the body but not the soul" are in fact killing your "future spiritual body". So the "body" spoken of in Matt 10 is THIS one.

YES that is the obvious part. So when Christ says of that body that God is able to destroy BOTH it and the soul in fiery hell and CONTRASTS that with those who can ONLY destroy that body but NOT the soul -- it makes it clear that "destroy is destroy" since all agree - that BODY can REALLY be destroyed.

Whic was my point.

The wicked are never promised an eternal immortal body at the resurrection.

This is another weakness in your view and is a strong point supporting the Matt 10 text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan

I had asked 'But are you saying nature, conscience or Law are enough to get saved by? Are the 'daughters' of millions of unevangelised folk able to be saved without the gospel?'

Bob replied
Your answer is in Romans 2: 5-26.

Bob, you then went on to assert, if I understood you right, that some of the unevangelised do get saved witout the gospel. They get saved by doing good works.

You have really lost the plot, Bob. Even Skandelon, in holding that the unevangelised can be saved by faith through natures's revelation of God, has been so bold.

Your error lies in regarding these doers of the Law as the unevangelised. But in fact they are merely Gentiles, Christian Gentiles. Look how Paul describes them, Rom.2: 26Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? 28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

1. He fulfills the Law.
2. He is circumcised of heart.
3. His praise is from God.

How can you think Paul is speaking of an unevangelised Gentile?

HERE is the fate of unevangelised Gentiles, Rom. 2: 12For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law,. Unless you say unevangelised Gentiles are sinless, you must accept their hopelessness without the gospel.

Paul is adamant that there is a future judgment “according to deeds”.

Yes, our judgement will be according to our works. The Scripture makes clear that no work offered without faith in God is acceptable to Him, Heb.11: 6But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. The works that will receive praise in the Day of Judgement are those done by men of faith, i.e. Christians. As James says, our works reveal the reality of our faith.

We also have the people of God - persevering, doing good and seeking glory and honor. What is the result? The text says immortality and eternal life.

Yes, the people of God. Who ever said any thing different? It is you who are saying these are unevangelised Gentiles.

We already know that in the judgment there are two classes - those that receive immortality and those that do not. If it is not clear to us by now that this chapter is dealing with both classes - we need to engage in some remedial reading comprehension.

But who has denied Rom.2 speaks of both classes? Am I missing something?

At this point Paul seems to ask that we "be not deceived" into thinking that some can do evil but find "preferred treatment" while others are lost for doing evil. Rather Paul argues that God has called all to repentance and all must comply - there will be no preferred treatment based on status (or magic phrase) allowing some of the rebels in.

Yes, all must repent or perish. Calvinists believe that. No rebel gets into heaven, only repentant, blood-washed saints. What are you trying to say?

Interesting that there are two different systems – one to address those who HAVE scripture and one to address those who do not.

Yes, the soul that sins will die, whether Jew or Gentile. What is your point?

Paul appears to be in harmony with Christ here as Christ said that those who knew there master's will and did it not receive many lashes but those that did not know the master's will and yet did deeds worthy of punishment - receive few
quote:
Luke 12: 47“and that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
notice that Christ does not assume everyone goes to hell anymore than Paul would make such an absurd statement in Romans 2. Rather the chapter is in context with the call for repentance as noted at the start.

??? Christ says in this quote that BOTH the ignorant and knowledgeable sinner are punished, but to different degrees. And Rom.2 is in context with the call to repentance, I agree. Only the repentant will be saved. What is your point?

Paul now summs it up - the justification that is future will be for the doers and not for those who are proven to be merely hearers.

Absolutely. That is what Calvinists believe. So what is your point?

This is not a fact that Paul then goes on to deny in the rest of the book of Romans. Rather he continues to strongly endorse it (note particularly Romans 6). John McAarthur did an excellent series on this point - titled "the power over sin".

I agree. And I'm sure John Mcarthur does a fine job of expounding Christian sanctification. He is a fine Calvinistic scholar. So what's your point?

There actually were Gentiles that really did not have the Law of God! That is very important to understand. And there were those who did instinctively the things of the Law showing it was written on their heart!! Wow! So that means Paul really was right!

I'm glad you agree with Paul on this. So do all Calvinists.

Even more interesting is the fact that this terminology regarding "the Law written on the heart" is new covenant terminology. Heb 8, 2Cor 3!!! Yes indeed we have the succeeding case as well as the failing case made in this non-myopic chapter of God's infallible word.

Yes, it sure is NC terminology. The Law written on our hearts is the portion of the saint of God, and only them.

wow! Apparently the infallible word is telling us that it is gospel - good news that a future judgment, where the Gentiles are shown to be doers of the Law and not merely hearers only, is coming. A future Christ centered judgment!! What a Christ-centered gospel Paul has in this chapter!!

Yes, that is the blessed hope we look for, and the blessed gospel we preach. Only those who heed it will be happy to face that Judgement.

Aah,Hmm. What's your point in posting all this stuff every Evangelical agrees on? Is it that you, by some strange thought process, think that it proves the unevangelised can be saved by their works? Or what?

In Him

Ian

 

In Rom 2 113-16 we see two important attributes of this unnevangelized gentile...

#1. HE does INSTINCTIVELY the things of the LAW.

#2. He is a LAW UNTO HIMSELF.

#3. He does not have anyting in writing - but the Jew does.

In Romans 3:1-2 we find that the Jew is the one that has the "oracles of God" and the promises of God by contrast.

Scripture was given to Israel. They had the Word of God. These gentiles had only "instinct" guided by the "Holy Spirit that convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment".

All Gentile Christians mentioned in the NT had "INSTRUCTION" - but in Romans 2 -- these had only "instict" who "Instictively do the things of the law...

"When the Gentiles who do not have the law" -- this is a very true statement - they lived in darkness and did not have scripture. But among them were those "Who did instinctively the things of the law" and who SHOW the things of the law written on their heart.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan said
Scripture was given to Israel. They had the Word of God. These gentiles had only "instinct" guided by the "Holy Spirit that convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment".

Then all Gentiles before Pentecost were without this guide.

All Gentile Christians mentioned in the NT had "INSTRUCTION" - but in Romans 2 -- these had only "instict" who "Instictively do the things of the law...

Paul did not come to them preaching and teaching the Law, so they were without Law as regards Moses, but 'ennomos', in law to Christ, when they believed, 1 Cor.9:21.

"When the Gentiles who do not have the law" -- this is a very true statement - they lived in darkness and did not have scripture. But among them were those "Who did instinctively the things of the law" and who SHOW the things of the law written on their heart.

Bob, I have discovered since entering this Rom.2 debate that there is quite a spectrum of opinion by commentators. Some good men hold that it is pagan Gentiles in view, others that it is some pagan Gentiles, others that it is Christian Gentiles.

It is the implications/consequencies of the views that are of prime importance. I mean, one can hold that Paul speaks of pagans and the 'law written on their hearts' refers to what we usually call conscience. That conscience drives pagans to refrain from some evil, but cannot save them, just as the Law cannot save the Jew.

Or their is my view, that Christian Gentiles are in view and that the 'law written on their hearts' is that promised by the New Covenant. Because they are saved, their good works will be rewarded in heaven.

Then there is your view, that pagans are in view, and the law written on their hearts is sufficent for them to earn eternal life.

That is pure heresy, Bob. Another gospel. You want to think about this some more, and then come back?

In Him

Ian

 

Bob Ryan said
Actually this is what God's Word said of them and being "exhibited as undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" IF I made it appear as though I wrote the book of Jude - I appologize. Do you not agree with that text of scripture?

O, Yes, I do agree with that text of Scripture. Here it is, Jude 7as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Where is annihilation here? Does not Christ tell us that these same people face punishment on the Day of Judgement? If they were annihilated, that would not be so.

Indeed. But rather than construe this as a contradiction OR as an excuse to water down the text of Jude - it is much more consistent to believe it. God is NOT going to build the buildings of Sodom and Gomorrah. The PEOPLE of that city will be raised in the Rev 20 "2nd resurrection" to suffer the 2nd death. And as Jude points out - this is when "God Convicts ALL the ungodly of ALL their ungodly deeds".

O, come on, Bob! Were the buildings the object of His wrath? Were houses and factories guilty of sexual immorality? No, the material cities were destroyed in punishing the PEOPLE.

And yes, their judgement will be at the same time as all the ungodly are judged. What is your point?

An interesting suggestion. However what it says is that although the City and all its inhabitants were REALLY destroyed by eternal fire - YET the inhabitants (not the city) will be raised again. The city is forever destroyed - for all eternity so when God said they were "destroyed" by eternal fire - we can believe it.

See your contradiction, Bob? You say the never-to-be resurrected fate of the buildings prove annihilation. But the SAME fire destroyed the PEOPLE, yet Christ shows us that they are to be punished further, i.e. they were NOT annihilated.

So then you happily exault that result JUST as the scenario describes the Calvinist doing. It is a great opportunity to praise God -- just as you say. May I quote you?

Please do quote anything I say - but not what you like to put in my mouth, as with the 'lesser hell'. Yes, the punishment of the wicked will bring forth praise from God's people, Rev.11:16-18.

YES that is the obvious part. So when Christ says of that body that God is able to destroy BOTH it and the soul in fiery hell and CONTRASTS that with those who can ONLY destroy that body but NOT the soul -- it makes it clear that "destroy is destroy" since all agree - that BODY can REALLY be destroyed.

The text says ' destroy both soul and body in hell.' - if destroy means annihilate, then where would the ALREADY annihilated body come from for God to destroy it in hell? The resurrection of the just and unjust annihilates ( ) your argument, Bob.

The wicked are never promised an eternal immortal body at the resurrection.

So their first body is DESTROYED (annihilated, says you) at death; then it is resurrected so that it can be annihilated again??? No, the very promise of the resurrection for the wicked is enough in itself to show us that the body they receive is to suffer with their spirit throughout eternity. 'No rest day nor night' is how Scripture describes those who weep and wail and gnash their teeth.

In Him

Ian

 

Bob Ryan said
Actually this is what God's Word said of them and being "exhibited as undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" IF I made it appear as though I wrote the book of Jude - I appologize. Do you not agree with that text of scripture?

Well - locate those cities -- and you will have your answer.

Can't? They are destroyed you say? I see.

That is not correct. The PEOPLE of those cities will be destroyed "both body and soul" according to the Words of Christ in Matt 10. No question about it.

Just as their CITY was destroyed along with their bodies.


In Christ,

Bob