Romans 1 and reprobation

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Jarthur001, Feb 25, 2011.

  1. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    I got in on the end of a thread talking about reprobation and Romans 1.

    The Text..Romans 1
    1) In Light of where Paul goes with this later, is this talking about all men?
    2) Is reprobating a greater level of a sinner?
    3) is it possible to live a life without covetousness?
    3) is covetousness debased and part of the reprobate?
     
  2. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0

    #1 -- Yes. The context is clearly all men (humankind)
    #2 -- No. But to us, it would appear so. In a sense, God rewards those already disposed to rebellion with the ability to continue in their same direction until such a time (as Paul explains later) as God Himself intervenes to halt their damned and doomed slide. One who is already dead cannot become "more dead" but their "hardening" can become evident to all.
    #3 -- No.
    #4 -- Yes, and God made this very clear in the 10th Commandment.

    We can work the 10 Commandments forward and show how God comes first, or we can work the 10 Commandments backward and show how covetousness leads eventually to godlessness. All is sin and all is rebellion, hence Paul says very clearly "for all have sinned".
     
  3. BobinKy

    BobinKy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jarthur001 and glfredrick...


    Thank you for asking specific questions and responding with concise answers to those questions.


    I enjoy theology discussions. But to tell the truth, I find many of the theology posts on this board too difficult to follow. Thus, I scan the posts or do not read the posts at all because of the poor manner in which the posts are written. And the personal comments just make following the theology discussed all the more confusing and ridiculous. Many times I insert a few images out of frustration.


    Anyway, I enjoy reading the two posts you two have posted in this thread. I hope all of the other posts show this high level of succinctness.


    ...Bob


    . . .


    Here are a few suggestions for those wanting to improve their writing skills.




    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]

    Concise writing is respectful of the reader's time.



    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]
     
    #3 BobinKy, Feb 25, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2011
  4. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    He is talking about all men who refuse to acknowledge God as God and are thusly given over to their rebellion. Some, like Job, Noah, Rahab, Ruth, Esther, David, Abraham etc etc, aren't ever "given over to their rebellion" and are considered righteous through faith in the sight of God.

    The debate is about why? Because they were elect and effectually caused to believe or did they freely respond to God's revelations? The first seems to contradict Paul's intent to show these men are all "without excuse," in my view.

    One "becomes" or "grows" hardened or calloused and is then "given over" to their rebellion. They aren't born as such. This explain why Jesus would point to a child as what men must be like to enter the kingdom.

    Probably not.

    Depends on what you mean by "debased" and "reprobate."
     
  5. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do believe you a bit of eisegesis going on here. But to be sure, we will take it slow.
    Paul gets right to the point early. In verse 18 the word "anthrōpos" (men) how do you have this not talking about all men?

    Let me show you just one of the problems you have by not seeing it this way. Romans 3..

    "None is righteous, no, not one;
    no one understands;
    no one seeks for God.
    All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
    no one does good,
    not even one."
    13"Their throat is an open grave;
    they use their tongues to deceive."
    "The venom of asps is under their lips."
    14"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
    15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
    16in their paths are ruin and misery,
    17and the way of peace they have not known."
    18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
    This is the climax Paul is been building to. He has shown in detail in chapters 1,2 and part of 3 why he makes such claims.

    Now that is why "the wrath of God is revealed" verse 18 of chapter 1. But now that he has made his climactic statement, notice what follows. Its the gospel..

    Chapter 3....
    21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

    This "ALL" have sinned in verse 23 is still ALL mankind. That has been the point all along. Paul has made the most tragic, awful, wretched, pathetic, picture of man that he can make. This is ALL men. The elect and non-elect. John Newton knew this when he wrote " Saved a wretch like me" in the song "Amazing Grace".

    Augustus M. Toplady understood this too when he wrote...
    Nothing in my hand I bring,
    simply to the cross I cling;
    naked, come to thee for dress;
    helpless, look to thee for grace;
    foul, I to the fountain fly;
    wash me, Savior, or I die.
    Paul say this in himself..Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

    David know of this.....

    1 Have mercy on me, O God,
    according to your unfailing love;
    according to your great compassion
    blot out my transgressions.
    2 Wash away all my iniquity
    and cleanse me from my sin. 3 For I know my transgressions,
    and my sin is always before me.
    4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
    and done what is evil in your sight;
    so you are right in your verdict
    and justified when you judge.
    5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
    sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
    6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
    you taught me wisdom in that secret place.



    Christ came to save sinners. How?


    Romans 3....

    24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith

    The gift of grace.


    This is very poor understanding here. I'll address this in a post by itself.


    See my upcoming post.


    ?? I say for sure, that no man can keep from it.


    Well, there is much to add to it, but for starters the list in the passage. :)
     
  6. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0

    And yet Abraham was declared righteous through faith.

    Two different means of righteousness being discussed here. One is through the law, which is really no means at all because "all have sinned and fallen short," Abraham included.

    But some have been declared righteous through faith and never do rebel to the level of those spoken of in Romans 1. How? That is a debate about the effectual call or free response of man.
    Great verse to illustrate what I just said... The righteousness NOW being revealed is through faith, not through the law. No one is declared righteous through the law. All sin and fall short. Some do believe however and are declared righteousness despite their sin through the blood of Christ.


    I simply left room for those who die in infancy or with mental disabilities....but doesn't change the point. This is not a point of contention. We all believe all sin and fall short...all mankind. Not all mankind refused to believe in God and acknowledge him as God, however. That is a fact clearly seen by just simply reading the historical accounts.​
     
  7. BobinKy

    BobinKy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jarthur001...

    Can you put all that in a simple paragraph?

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    I asked just one thing, and you dodged it.

    AGAIN...
    In verse 18 the word "anthrōpos" (men) how do you have this not talking about all men?
     
  9. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes I could. Why do you ask?
     
  10. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ironic that it's the Calvinists insisting all men actually means all for once. :laugh:

    Interestingly enough, if you take your conclusions to their end you even have the elect of your very system being "given over" to rebellion. Is that your contention?

    Plus, verse 18 says "all...men who suppress the truth by their wickedness" not all men without qualification.
     
  11. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not really. Calvinist say the word "all" must be read in context. But the word "all" is not even in this text, now is it? Still, that is what Paul means...right?

    This is Pauls picture indeed. Apart from Gods grace, men..ALL MEN are sinners on their way to hell, and cannot save themselves. BAD BAD BAD...LOST LOST LOST....that is the picture.



    WHO is not a qualification. Its telling what ALL MEN do. In face some translations do not have the word WHO in there.

    Youngs...
    18for revealed is the wrath of God from heaven upon all impiety and unrighteousness of men, holding down the truth in unrighteousness.
     
  12. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    There you go. Now you say, "APART FROM GOD'S GRACE" which qualifies "all men" because those who "received grace" (the elect of your system) weren't "given over" in the way Paul describes because they were effectually drawn to God and thus acknowledged him as God etc etc. Right?
     
  13. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    44
    From John Gill's Exposition at Romans 1:29:

     
  14. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Now I say",....... which I knew you would like this one....I SAID IT....BUT PAUL has not said...has he? :)

    Once again, Paul is painting a BAD picture of man, and in Romans 1: 18....through Romans 3 where you see the word..BUT NOW....Man is nothing but BAD.

    BUT NOW...changes things. Gods grace comes. But you dummy down the message if you do not follow it word by word and jump to the end.

    This is all freewillers want to do....GO D IS LOVE>>>>GOD IS LOVE>>>GOD IS LOVE.

    Yes...but Gods love is overtop of his WRATH....which is on ALL men.

    Get it??
     
    #14 Jarthur001, Feb 25, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2011
  15. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    That explanation is simple, just like Bob likes it. It is "all" when it is necessary and it is not "all" when it is not convenient.
     
  16. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    maybe it is for you, but Calvinist go by the context, which maybe you should do as well.
     
  17. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what you are saying (and I'm honestly just trying to understand your view here, not argue with you) is that Paul is just talking about what all man WOULD do if not for His grace intervening to stop it? So, men like Abraham who clearly didn't ever rebel to the point of being "given over" are exceptions because of God's grace intervening.

    Is that correct?

    If so, you need to know that is what I was saying from the beginning. You just believe God interveners effectually and I believe men can resist and rebel freely.

    Really? Do you honestly believe that is an accurate reflection of my points of discussion?

    Not only do I get it, but I preach the wrath of God regularly. What are we saved from? The WRATH OF GOD. That must be understood in order for believers to appreciate the grace of God. I sure hope you don't have such a limited perspective of Arminianism to think all of us are so weak theologically as to miss such a basic tenet of the faith.
     
  18. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
    Great Post.
     
  19. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    God gave them up ...
    means more than the mere removal of the restraining hand of providence from the lives of wrongdoers, for there is included a conscious requirement of God that the sinner thus judged shall be compelled to continue upon the shameful path he has chosen, just as in the case of Judas who received the sentence from Christ, "What thou doest, do quickly" (John 13:7), in which case Satan had already entered Judas' heart, and he had been given up by Christ to commit the treacherous deed already committed in his heart. Another example of the same thing is the case of Balaam who, when he would have turned back from a wrong course, was commanded of God, "Go with the men" (Numbers 22:22). Once people have consciously put God out of mind and allowed Satan to have dominion in their thoughts, they have at that point entered the downward road, and God himself will see to it that they go all the way to the end of the road they have deliberately chosen, or, to borrow an old proverb, lie in the beds they have made. This is not to say, however, that God causes people to do wrong; far from it. Lenski pointed out the difference thus:

    This is more than permission to fall into uncleanness, and it is less than causing this fall. God's action is judicial. At first, God always restrains by moral persuasion, by legal and other hindrances; but when God is completely cast off, when the measure of ungodliness overflows, his punitive justice hands the sinners over completely to their sins in order to let the sins run to excess and destroy the sinners.

    Thus, from God's treatment of the ancient Gentile world, it might properly be inferred that when the present world has reached a certain degree of rebellion against God, he will loose Satan upon humanity for the same purpose, which could indeed be why such an event as the "loosing of Satan" should be included in the divine plan (Revelation 20:3,7).

    We cannot leave this passage without repeating the emphasis upon the truth that the reprobacy of the pre-Christian world was essentially an apostasy, wherein the people exchanged the truth of God for a lie. Refusing to honor the Father, they found themselves upon a downward escalator, moving them inexorably to lower and lower levels of depravity. The pagan idolatry and reprobacy into which those people plunged were not primitive or primeval, but exactly the opposite, being the terminal condition resulting from their rejection of the one true and Almighty God; and a major deduction from this that appears inevitable is that man did not rise by his own bootstraps through depravity and idolatry to a conviction of monotheism; but that, on the other hand, he descended from the privilege of prior knowledge of God to the foolishness and immorality of paganism. The so-called "savage" is therefore not primitive or original, as to his moral condition, but is the natural descendant of the people who dishonored God and turned away from following him, despite the fact that they knew him.

    As people contemplate the wretched condition of the ancient Gentiles that came about by their apostasy, they should find the incentive to examine themselves continually, and to draw ever nearer and nearer to God. If a disaster similar to that which overwhelmed ancient Gentiles is to be averted from the posterity of present enlightened populations of the earth, men must employ themselves wholeheartedly in the service of God, striving constantly to know the Truth, and beholding in it, as in a mirror, themselves as they appear in the eyes of God. Only by the most faithful adherence to God's truth in Christ, as revealed in the Bible, can it ever be possible to avoid a repetition of the historic moral catastrophe which debauched the pre-Christian era.

    http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=001
     
  20. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that you have really missed the boat with this comment... Every text of Scripture comes in context. We don't get to simply "concord" a word, then apply one single usage to that word, but neither do we get to "concord" a word and apply all the usages to ever application. That, for every given biblical word, there are multiple usages indicates that there is a contextual usage for each determined by the pericope in which that word is written.

    In other words (for Bob...) the surrounding text determines what any given word might mean.

    In the case of Paul in Romans, he builds a very careful argument for the universal use of "pas" or in English, "all."
     

Share This Page

Loading...