T.u.l.i.p

You are wrong. Believe the Bible.

Pure philosophy -- not scriptural.

I'm just being biblical. The Bible is the authority -- not me.

 

You cannot back that up with scripture.

 

Genesis 6:8-9 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.


This verse does not show that all men were/are spiritual corpses. Noah was the exception in his generation.

 

John 6:43-44 "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. "No one can come to me UNLESS the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? John 6:65-66 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me UNLESS the Father has ENABLED him." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

 

Most Calvinist make the case from Romans 9 that God's method of "choosing" the saved from the non saved is the same process of God choosing Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and finally the nation of Israel. That salvation in the NT after Christ ascended is no different, God chooses, God elects, God decrees and man has no responsibility or part to play. And I know Romans ch 9 is a great favorite to proof text that doctrine. Am I right?

Since I didn't give many details....

Hey isn't that what we ALL say!! :tongue3::tongue3::tongue3:

Darren

 

Which came first: God's grace, or Noah's perfection?

Do you suppose that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord BECAUSE he was a just man and perfect?

Or would it be more accurate to say that Noah was a just man and perfect BECAUSE OF the grace of God?

 

Elect, Chosen

The difference between the one's who walked away to the one's who stayed is the one's who left didn't listen and learn they were following the crowd to the one's who stayed who did listen and learn. What am I doing I believe in the Elect the one's to prepare the way for Christ and prepare for the Holy Spirit like rain instead of just individual after Christ glorification. Now all men are drawn and come when they listen and learn from the Father through the words of Jesus not men, because Christ condemned sin in the flesh. So the Spirit and life in the words of Jesus can do the work in us. So we can do what Christ ask us to believe and be saved or not and be condemned.

I got a question to. To the one's before Christ who didn't seek after God because they didn't know how, but did do what they did learn. To sacrifice yearly for their sin not because they thought what they did what saved them, but believed and trusted God to do what He said He would do. Where they included with the elect or where they condemned?

I believe in the elect, but I also believe that God included those who heard the Gospel of their salvation having believed. I see the biggest problem my self that two groups are arguing over a different side of the same coin.

 

What you have written completely ignores the context of Genesis 6.

Mankind is so evil (by the 6th chapter of the entire Bible, I might add) that God destroys them all.

Noah finds favor in God's eyes. The word righteous refers to being in accordance with a proper standard, namely God's. The word blameless refers to a "moral goodness." Yet, we have already seen that this is not the condition of mankind here. The juxtaposition of these facts is intended to show that Noah's righteousness and blamelessness is God's doing, not Noah's. This is further exemplified by the phrase "Noah walked with God." This phrase stands in sharp contrast with v. 5 "the wickedness of man was great..."

That Noah "walked" with God shows that Noah did not come to this by himself. Rather, God is always the one who seeks out fallen mankind (even if it is only one) to have a relationship.

Furthermore, we know that Noah doesn't live up to being "perfect." The first thing he does after the flood is over is to get drunk and, in a manner of speaking, expose himself to his sons. So, if Genesis 6:8-9 is intending to show "perfection" as you would like it to, the post-flood account would contradict Genesis 6. What is happening here is the intended contrast between Noah and the other men of his time. Without a doubt, God is the deciding factor in the difference--God having set His favor on Noah is what causes Noah to walk with God.

Why else is this the case? Because God always preserves for Himself a faithful remnant. Noah is the remnant here, but he is the remnant because God proactively preserves him. Second, this goes hand-in-hand with God's plan to restore Eden through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and the salvation of sinners. This is part of the plan of paradise lost and paradise regained. God has to preserve humanity and sets His favor on Noah to ensure He can do exactly that.

This passage is not a description of Noah's virtues. It is a description of God's grace.

The Archangel

 

What a bunch of eisegesis mularkey! This is purely what you bring and put into the text - not what is gleaned from the text. The contrast is clearly that Noah believes in God (based on evidence, according to Rom. 1 and Hebrews 11) and that everyone else does not. It is not God pointing out to us how He can choose one person and 'preserve' him for Himself - over against all the others that He has chosen to destroy! Wow! What a God!

As far as Noah's perfection being less than "perfect" - of course it doesn't mean "perfection" - nor does anyone think it does. No more than David - a man after God's own heart was "perfect." Or Job was "perfect."

And, of course God drew (we could even say wooed) Noah - just the same as everyone else - the difference being that Noah responded and "accepted" the free gift - the others did not.

 

First, explain why a corpse needs their heart hardened...or better yet, why and how the "god of this wold" can blind them? Either dead is dead (corpse) or it isn't.

You cannot deny the historical context of Genesis 6. That was such a unique situation God had to flood the entire world.

The Jeremiah passage does not support or refute the "corpse" notion. It is showing the wickedness of the sin nature.

Note that you were dead in YOUR trespasses and sins that YOU walked in. Spiritual death was caused by our sins, not Adam's. We were not created spiritual corpses, we became spiritually separated from God in the same manner Adam did...by sinning.

At any rate none of those passages support spiritual death = spiritual corpse.

 

I agree with Webdog, we die spiritually when we knowingly and willingly sin. God never punishes the children for the sins of their father or vice versa.

Deut 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

If death passed on us because of Adam's sin, then God would be breaking his own law. Contrary to what many teach here, God cannot do just anything he wants simply because he is God. He is a holy and righteous God and cannot sin, therefore he cannot break his own laws.

Children are not born sinners, but everyone commits sin and becomes a sinner. The scriptures show little children are not sinners.

Matt 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus said we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of God. Is Jesus here telling us to become wicked sinners? Hardly.

 

Not at all. Your misinterpretation runs afoul of the Hebrew.

The idiom "found favor in the eyes" (of the LORD in this case) demonstrates God's choosing of Noah based on God's good purposes, not Noah's inherent goodness.

The Hebrew in this passage is: מָצָא חֵן בְּעֵינֵי יהוה The literal translation is [and Noah] he found favor in the eyes of Yahweh. The phrase "to find favor in" means to find grace in one's eyes. It means that God disposed favorably to Noah.

If, as you say, Noah did something so that God placed His favor on him, the phrase would be: נֹשֵׂאת חֵן בְּעֵינֵי This phrase means "to cause one to be pleased with." So, if as you suggest, Noah successfully "auditioned" for God's favor or if there was something endemic to Noah that caused God to be pleased with him, this is the phrase we'd have. This phrase, however, is not present in Genesis 6:8.

Therefore, it is in no way, shape, or form eisegesis to say what I have said. It is based in a working knowledge of Hebrew and the idioms thereof and it is exegetically sound.

The text itself says that God placed His favor on Noah and that is what caused Noah to be righteous and blameless in his generation.

The Archangel

 

I think God hardens the spiritually dead precisely to magnify His glory and to increase the judgment of unrepentant sinners. That's my opinion.

But, we know that man is said to be spiritually dead and we know that further hardening of the dead happens. Those two facts are not at odds, even if my opinion (above) is not correct.

I'm not denying anything. The statement, however, is a universal statement about the condition of mankind. It isn't as if man got better after the flood.

Sure it does. The last phrase "who can understand it" has the implied answer of no one. Then, in v. 10, God declares that He understands the heart. Therefore, He is the only one who understands the human heart and a sinner cannot understand his own heart (probably including how sinful he is, etc.).

But you missed the "were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Current Christians were at one time children of God's wrath and we were so by our nature. Non-Christians are still children of God's wrath and they are so by nature.

Because they are so by nature, trespasses and sins are a way of life (the meaning of the word "walk"). Non-believers (and believers before they become Christians) are so identified with sin as a way of life--because they are by nature sinners--that they are called "sons of disobedience" which is a way of saying a "son [or daughter] of Satan."

What is more, the entire discussion, in Ephesians chapter 1, about God's electing purposes--including adoption--demonstrate the need for our having to be elected to be saved. In adoption, the child does not choose the adoptive parents, the adoptive parents choose the child. That is how we can be saved--God chooses to adopt people from the sons of disobedience and bring them into His own family. This is nothing we can do for ourselves.

Sure they do. But "corpse" is a bit misleading perhaps. It would be better to think of sinners as zombies--physically alive (or animated) and spiritually dead. That is the picture Ephesians 2:1-3 draws and it ain't pretty.

The Archangel

 

But why would He do that as it's futile? A dead person doesn't have a heart to harden, and judgement on a corpse is what? That's like kicking a dead person, it's pointless.

I don't believe the context is making a universal statement, and I believe man left to himself is quite hopeless. There has only been one time where mankind was completely devoid but one family. I don't think that has ever occurred since.

I agree with your statement completely, however it does not prove man is a spiritual corpse.

I didn't miss it, I again agree. By nature (sin nature) does not equate to spiritually dead. I still have this nature that needs to be eradicated, but I'm not spiritually dead. This is the reason it has been appointed unto man once to die...that is God's judgment against said nature.

They are by nature sinful...not sinners. We do not say a newborn is a walker, runner and talker even though we know that is what they are by nature. We know given time this is what all humans will become. That same is true with the sin nature, it is all part of human nature encompassing the material and immaterial.

The common denominator in all of that is "in Christ". That phrase is found like 13 times in the first 12 verses.

In all of the zombie movies I have seen, the zombie had the ability to respond

 

I appreciate analogies. But there are a few problems with this one.

1. It assumes something the Bible never teaches. That all men have value. I hear the shock. I smell the matches lighting the torches and hear the brandishing of the pitch forks. But where did God ever say that men have intrinsic value? This is more humanism than Soteriologically accurate.

2. There are strings attached. Jesus came to be the Lord of them that believe. The strings are that Jesus demands repentance, a complete overhaul in philosophy from one that is mindful of self to him being mindful of honoring the Sovereign God.

3. The man would not have to reach at all if you were God trying to save him. If you were God wanting to save him your arm would not be short that it could not save. His reaching would not be necessary. And if you willed for him to reach then you could command the fibers of his arm and make them reach. And if you were not willing to save him until he was willing you could make him willing.

4. All men had rather perish than to turn to God. There is none that seeketh after God.

5. It assumes that those who go to heaven are just smarter than those who go to hell. They had more sense. So stupid people all go to hell and smart people all go to heaven. Of course this is ridiculous because none understandeth and they CANNNOT know these things because they are spiritually discerned.

 

Excellent points all.

Now you better duck.:tonofbricks:

 

After 20+ years of studying God word I have come to see it's like both side of the same coin "there is some mystery to it". Even Paul and King David would stop and say that the deep knowledge and judgment of God are surpassed finding out. In John 12 those who were given light but did not act on it were blinded by God "judicial blindness" like Pharaoh in the OT who had opportunity after opportunity hardened his heart till God hardened Him. No one comes to Christ unless the Father enables him and I believe it is those who are faithful with the little truth "opportunity" that there is a God and seeks Him while He may be found are given more light. Those that see the signs that point to God are given more light.....thus the Father points them and "enables" them to find Christ and the veil is taken away. Those who like the evil steward who hid his talent "suppressed the opportunity" had even that taken away.....like those in John 12. Scripture says "because of the ignorance that is in them because of the hardness of their hearts". You might say "so are some people just smarter than some?" Well does not the scriptures say "they being willfully ignorant".....which is stupid on purpose.

 

Hey Archangel,

Here is the eisegesis, I quote from your post: "demonstrates God's choosing of Noah based on God's good purposes" Here you presume upon what the criteria or basis for the idiom "found favor in the eyes" (of the LORD in this case), is. You have not proven your case that this is the criteria - you inserted it.

Also, let's get this straight, I did not say, as you say I said , "Noah did something so that God placed His favor on him." Nor, did I suggest, as you say I suggested , "Noah successfully "auditioned" for God's favor." Neither, did I suggest, as you say I suggested , there was something endemic to Noah that caused God to be pleased with him.

You put all these words in my mouth . Let's try again. Here is scripture. I know that you will say how I misinterpret it, but I believe it is right this way anyway.

When I say that (I quote myself from that post), "the difference being that Noah responded and "accepted" the free gift - the others did not" I am of course, referring to Eph. 2:8,9. Noah's mere acceptance of God's gift is NOT anything inherently,endemically, or otherwise "good" on Noah's part. It is not of Noah! It is not meritorious! It is not a work, lest any man should boast! The same holds true for us today.

 

Problem the first, try these on for size:

Problem the second, I acknowledge and agree with this statement - it does nothing to change the dynamic of the allegory.

Problem the third, as you said in, problem the second, "there are strings attached." If God chose to reach out for miles - obviously, he could - however, God has ordained, or predestined, that the rules must be followed - repentance and faith - from the sinner.

Problem the fourth, seeking after God is not in the allegory - nor in life - what is in view, is the acceptance of the free gift of God, that is not of ourselves, and not a work, lest any man should boast (Eph. 2:8,9).

Problem the fifth, HUH?

 

Are you calling it eisegesis because it disagrees with your position? "To find favor in the eyes..." is a Hebrew idiom. That's not my take on the phrase, it is known fact. The idiom itself means that the reason Noah was righteous and blameless (as opposed to the rest of humanity) was because God set His favor on him.

That's what it is. If you'd like to disprove what I am saying, try working with the Hebrew to show me I'm wrong. Otherwise, your errant charges of eisegesis are more akin to a liar-liar-pants-on-fire than that of any serious discussion.

Perhaps you didn't say these things, but these things are the logical outcome of what you did say. But, I will try to be exacting in my quotes from now on.

Even this paragraph (like the one before it) shows that you think man is neutral. Noah was preserved by God before Noah responded to and then walked with God. That is what the text means.

When you say "responded and accepted the free gift - the others did not" is saying that Noah was himself better than the rest of humanity. When you juxtapose Noah's response to God and the non-response of everyone else (especially when you did say "And, of course God drew (we could even say wooed) Noah - just the same as everyone else - the difference being that Noah responded and "accepted" the free gift - the others did not.") you are saying that Noah had merit the others didn't.

But, again, the Hebrew idiom "found favor in the eyes of..." settles the debate. It shows the reason for Noah's being found faithful--it is God's work, primarily, not Noah's.

The Archangel