Defining "the law" as used in New Testament

I had not seen that yet. I just responded to it - and apparently there was a miscommunication. My reference to the people of God in Rom 2:1-3 had to do with the fact that the "reader" is someone at the church of Rome. I did not mean to imply that this is the saved condition.

In fact I would argue that the approved saints in Romans 1 (a group that Paul also includes himself in) - are not practicing the bold rebellion listed in Rom 2:1-3.

And it does not change the fact that God's call to repentance - in the case of the lost (and the Rom 2:1-3 guys are certainly lost) is the heart of the Gospel as we see it in Acts 17:30 and 2Peter 3:9 and John 16:8.

Thus - God as the first cause for obedience starts with God drawing all men and convicting the world of sin - calling all men everywhere to repentance.

The arminian model is that the supernatural drawing of ALL "enables that which depravity disables" and even a number of Calvinists have had to agree to that point.

But the drawing of God does not "insert repentance" it grants the option to the sinner so that the one granted the gift may choose to use it.


Paul says "it is no longer I who live - but Christ that lives in me" - Gal 2:20 - and also says "I buffet my body and make it my slave LEST after preaching the Gospel to others I myself should be disqualified" 1Cor 9.

The Calvinist trick of trying to make God the robot-controller of Paul fails here because it would mean that Paul is buffeting his body for fear that God might forget to cause him not to be disqualified.

You have missed the context in 1Cor 9 - and are simply eisegeting your preference into the chapter. Paul seeks not to be disqualified from the Gospel and thus not be eliminated as a "fellow partaker of it"

23I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the Gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified

Paul repeatedly makes the argument that he is preaching the Gospel and then concludes with the remark about not wanting to be disqualified from the very Gospel he is preaching.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Phil 2:14 "do all things without grumbling or disputing" -- is Paul instructing God as to what to "will" and "do" in the saints? Or is this a command to the church to CHOOSE to follow God's leaing?

Your problems are generally in the same texts you suppose are making your case.

I have repeatedly shown the first-cause work of God in leading the lost to be saved - and also in Romans 8 of enabling the saved to persevere - but this does not negate the warning, the problem, the risk of not choosing to persevere and thus being severed from Christ - fallen from Grace.

23I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

There is no such thing as "saved without Christ".

The one that is alone - and has Christ only on the outside - knocking - is not "in Christ" is not "no longer I who live but Christ that lives in me".

The calvinist position needs to come up with a new kind of "without Christ" salvation to make that work.

It is characteristic of calvinism to blame God for cases where man chooses to fail. God is not effective in the Calvinist model if man chooses to either resist the call to repentance or to fail to persevere as a saved saint.

The flaw is more apparent than some have imagined.

It is the goodness of God that leads you to repentance - therefore God calls for all men everywhere to repent.

The "natural convicting power" of the supernatural Word of God "alive and active and sharper than a two-edged sword" is a conflicted position to say the least.

You missed the point entirely. Christ is the light that coming into the world enlightens every man, he came even to his own,

But the choice of some is such that "his own received him not"

And the choice of others is "but to as many as received Him to them He gave the right to be called the sons of God".

At no point does the text make this a "God arbitrarily selected the few to receive Him" chatper in favor of Calvinism's arbitrary selection doctrine.

Which seems to be the excuse our Calvinist friends use for ignoring the inconvient details of Romans 2.

in Christ,

Bob

 

That was kind of you to do so sir. Apology accepted - though I did not take offense at your remarks in any case. I have been in the habbit of engaging in these discussions for so long that I simply skim past the part where people are expressing momentary frustration - and look for some area in their post where they get to the details of the text itself.

I have returned to that thread to respond to the points raised there.

In 1Cor 9 Paul explicitly states what he views is the benefit of the Gospel.

Paul is explicit in 1Cor 9 - that the benefit of the Gospel is salvation.

I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.

In the striving for salvation that Paul says all are engaged in - Paul argues that it is an "imperishable" prize as compared to an earthly prize. (By comparison he does not argue that all of his listeners are Apostles)

Paul explicitly states in 1Cor 9 that the "only reward" he seeks is the "reward of not charging others" when he preaches the gospel.


16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.
17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.
18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.



At no point in 1Cor 9 does Paul bring up the case of those who are saved - and yet no longer called to preach the Gospel - nor does he argue that he himself is concerned about that state.

"I buffet my body and make it my slave lest I no longer be called to preach the gospel" is not anywhere in the chapter.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, it seems characteristic of you (and another poster) to label those who expound the Scriptures as Calvinists. Instead of the "name-calling" or you deciding who belongs where, why not just answer or debate the Scriptural points being brought up: point by point; Scripture vs. Scripture, etc.

It does no good to try and dismiss a Biblical position by simply saying "that is Calvinism." We can see straight through that.

 

agreed.

In vs 11-18 is Paul's argument not only for paying evangelists and pastors but also for his own special desire that he not be paid as his temporal "reward".

18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

to that point I don't see our differences being very much more than what you might want to focus or not focus on. No difference of substance as yourself admit in vs 18

Vs 19-22 Paul speaks to his effort to reach both Jews and Gentiles in the best way possible so as to reach them with the gospel - in fact to "Win them" to the Gospel and thus "by all means save some" (which is what Paul sees as the real focuse for the benefit of the Gospel".

21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.


He concludes that point of salvation by saying

23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.


He does not say "I do all things for the Gospel that I may be an apostle along with my fellow apostles".

He does not say "I do all things for the gospel that I may be an evangelist along with my fellow evangelists".

After carefully laying a context of those he is reaching and winning to the Gospel and thus saving he says I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it. he shows that he is a fellow partaker along with those he is evangelizing (the context he has just explicitly set in the text).

This is an inconvenient detail that the objective unbiased reader is not likely to gloss over.

There is not much inference needed to see that his statement "that I may be a fellow partaker of it" is a direct explicit reference to his interest - his sake, his benefit.

Again leaving that point as an exercise for the reader is not much of an assignment for them. I am sure you would agree.

We do agree that his being all things to all people is an effort to advance the gospel and to "by all means save some".

But in vs 23 he adds the benefit that he gains from this as well. To partake of the gospel along with those he is winning to the gospel.

vs 11 "If we sowed spiritual things IN YOU is it teoo much if we should reap material things FROM YOU... the Lord directed those who proclaim THE GOSPEL to get their living from the GOSPEL".

"I gave YOU milk to drink, not solid food... I planted, Apollos watered.. we are God's fellow workers YOU are God's field, God's building... I laid a foundation and another is building on it" 1Cor 3:2, 6, 9, 10.

"
15 For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel. 1Cor 4:15

23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

Persons who became saved through the same Gospel preaching of Paul that Paul claims he is still doing among the gentiles and the jews.

There is no "Join me in being an apostle" there is no "be a fellow partaker in my calling as an evangelist" nor even "join me in offering the gospel without getting paid" in that text.

The focus is on Paul being a fellow partaker of the same Gospel that he preached to them that resulted in the salvation not only of the christians at Corinth but of all the Jews and Gentiles Paul has reached to that point.


in Christ,

Bob

 

15 For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel. 1Cor 4:15


1Cor 9
23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the Gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified

At no point in 1Cor 9 does Paul argue "we are all evangelists we all have the right to be paid through the Gospel -- but I choose as my reward not to get paid" so as to bend this chapter over to the idea that Paul and his readers in Corinth are all engaged in a vocational calling where they all need instruction to join with Paul as an Apostle and an Evangelist who - though they have the right to be paid - might like Paul choose not to be.

I think we can agree that such is not even remotely the subject of anything in this entire chapter.

And the eternal reward Paul mentions in 1Cor 9 - is found both in 22, 23, vs

22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.


1Cor 9
23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

That much is true.

However at no point does Paul argue that his vocation is also the vocation of the readers in Corinth. Thus the point at which they are fellow partakers is NOT that they are in the same vocation - but that they are fellow partakers in the Gospel itself.

It is on this point alone that Paul now includes both himself and his readers.


23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the Gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified


you may simply dismiss this as a case where we "differ" but I would ask you to think about it for a second.

If your view is right - then you are benefitted by describing it in the detail to which this discussion lends itself. If you are wrong - then I am benefitted by having you describe your view in this level of detail as well - because it provides the opportunity to contrast (for ourselves and for the reader) at the level of inconvenient detail - the areas where your view leaves the text.

Arguably then we are both motivated to explore the point to this level of detail. It is a win-win.

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP: WHAT?? Your conclusion suggests that Jewish law did not have its foundation in laws written on the heart prior to the ten commandments.

The law is indeed never spoken of as the ‘grounds’ of justification, but justification will never be accomplished ‘apart from’ a willingness to abide by the moral law of God as known to the individual at the time of salvation. To consider otherwise is nothing short of pure antinomianism resulting in deterministic fatalism.

 

HP: First, the ten commandments came subsequent to the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment to the world. As for the ten commadments being written in the conscience of men, not true. Even Paul, a very well taught and learned individual, states clearly Ro 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

[Personal attack removed]

 

HP: I cannot see how this makes your point at all. Do the words ‘which may be known’ suggest that everything is indeed known intuitively? I would not think so, and neither did Paul.

 

HP: I interpret you as saying, if Dr. Walter says something, it matters not how close to the truth it in reality is, it is to simply be accepted as the gospel.

Sorry Dr. I do not play ‘silly games.’ Theology is serious business. Your remarks need to be tested and questioned just as do the remarks of all of us. You have made some remarks simply not in accordance to truth or the Scriptures and should be challenged. :thumbs:

There is no Scripture anywhere that suggests that all of the moral law is or has been intuitively known, and clear passages that refute your remark suggesting that it has been or is. Certainly there has been and is enough truth intuitively known to convict all of sin, but that is a far cry from your statements.

 

HP: Contrary to your belief, I can read and comprehend Scripture. I fully understand that the heathen indeed possess a measurement of enlightenment, at least enough to condemn them when they sin in some manner, yet that in no wise makes the case you appear to be presenting that the law in its entirety is known and understood by mere heathen. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you and a few others, Paul was no heathen and yet even he had no just comprehension of the law regarding covetousness apart from reading the law “thou shalt not covet.”

Furthermore, if the entire moral law was already written on the heart of every man, why would God state the following? “Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:”

I would maintain only one in fellowship with God has a complete understanding of Gods moral law, and even still in a finite not infinite manner.

“See Dick run?”:wavey: