God's election

Horrible exegesis. Where does the hunger and thirst come from? From God. Notice he says they are "blessed" (by God).

Also: you cannot put two different parables, sayings, or analolgies together from different parts of scripture. The context of Matthew 5:6, is to the saved: Jesus is explaining how to "live out" the Christian life, NOT telling them how to be saved: THAT IS WORKS RIGHTEOUSNESS!

The second, in John, is referring to the eternal reward of the believer. It is a direct allusion to Isaiah 49:10, which is specifically speaking of Heaven.

"the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him" is set in the realm of Natural Revelation. In context, Paul is referring to their idol worship: just keep reading:

"we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.
Act 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.."

This "groping around" or "feeling around" (actually, the Greek word means to manipulate) is an innaproprate search for God: a Pagan thing. Scripture does not contradict scripture: and scripture firmly declares:

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

You do know what "none" means, right? So

Apparently only for those who have English as a second language..:laugh:

 

You know what "as it is written" means, right? Who is Paul quoting from?

 

Could it possibly be GOD [Who initially inspired the Psalmist]?

 

Semantics game aside, who does the psalmist refer to in this manner?

 

The Psalmist can say it better than I can!

Psalm 14 <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>>
1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

 

Did you miss the very first words of the Psalm? The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. These are the ones that have rejected the truth in Romans 1.

 

Not at all. The sentence specifically states that God looked down on the "Children of Men" (everyone) and said that NONE of the Children of men seek out God.

It is an unbelievable twist of scripture, to try to limit this verse to certain "fools" who deny God. Besides, if you look at the way PAUL uses it, He specifically applies it to absolutely everyone...

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.


Paul just said, "It doesn't matter who you are, Jew or Gentile, man or woman, all are UNDER (in bondage/slavery to) sin, and their are NONE who seek after God."

How can someone who is so adamant about God's free grace, try to divide humanity into the "bad" and "really bad"? We are ALL equally guilty.

 

First, the "sons of men" refers to wicked mankind, as we see in the days of Noah. The one who doesn't seek after God is the one who has already rejected the truth God has presented them (Romans 1). These are the ones Paul is speaking of.
Second, Paul is stressing to the Jewish reader that they are not "righteous" due to their heritage alone (not all Israel is Israel), that they are the very ones who have rejected the truth presented to them (Christ), hence they fall into the same camp as the wicked fool who has said there is no God.

 

Excellent observation. The OT frequently differentiates between the unrighteous as "sons of men" and the unrghteous as "sons of God". In a twist of irony, the koine Greek referrs to Christ as both the Son of Man and Son of God. It's not a reference to Christ being unrighteous, it's a reference to his being of man as fully as being of God the Father. That irony tends to get lost in translation to English.

 

Webdog

I expected you to interpret the passage as you did. When I read it initially, and quickly, that is the way I interpreted the passage. However, in response to your following post I took a closer look.

Then I posted the passage from Psalm 14, bolding certain words in verse 2 to indicate those to whom the bolded words in verse 3 apply. I see that Havensdad interprets it in essentially the same way I do.

 

This is ridiculous. You need to recognize the diffence in literary genre, between Psalms and Genesis. Nearly every time that the book of Psalms uses "Son of man" or "sons of men" it is referring to believers.

Psa 80:17 But let your hand be on the man of your right hand, the son of man whom you have made strong for yourself!

Psa 144:3 O LORD, what is man that you regard him, or the son of man that you think of him?

Psa 45:1 To the choirmaster: according to Lilies. A Maskil of the Sons of Korah; a love song. My heart overflows with a pleasing theme; I address my verses to the king; my tongue is like the pen of a ready scribe.
Psa 45:2 You are the most handsome of the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you forever.

Not at all. Paul specifically says "We".

Paul is stressing that no one is righteous, and no one seeks after God: just like he said. He says "we": he is not pointing out only those who have continually rejected God.

Paul is saying that none are righteous, and none seek after God.

 

Probably not. The section ends by saying that that is what the LAW says to those under it. James Dunn observes that the verses were originally directed at Israel's enemies, but not Israel. Now Paul uses them against Israel. The conclusion is that to continue to try to seek righteousness under the law leaves those who do so outside the covenant, and those outside do not please God in any way. Therefore, the law condemns.

 

Sigh. Paul is stating unequivocally that none seek God, and none are righteous. That is what Paul says: I don't care what James Dunn says.

Besides, according to scripture, all who are not called of God, are under the law. This would still say the same thing: none seek after God: He seeks them.

 

No, he says that thinking that the audience will undestand the context.

1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
2 The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.

3 All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

4 Will evildoers never learn—
those who devour my people as men eat bread
and who do not call on the LORD ?

5 There they are, overwhelmed with dread,
for God is present in the company of the righteous.

6 You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor,
but the LORD is their refuge.

7 Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people,
let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!

I'm sure you don't. However, he agrees with most OT scholars concerning the context. Paul knows the context, and by quoting it appeals to it.

Paul interprets the verses for us and says that that is what the law says to those under it. Then he turns to say that those who lived under it waited for Christ's arrival to be justified (Romans 3:26).

In otherwords, at the very place where you would expect Paul to make your observation, he makes mine. I agree with you that your conclusion is required if your theory is correct. However, Paul comes to my conclusion, and the absence of yours in Paul's conclusion is evidence that he's not making your point. He's making mine, as evidenced in his own words.

 

You have a huge problem with your exegesis: Paul is not just quoting Psalm 14. In fact, he intentionally cuts it off, and switches to Isaiah 59:7, which states at the beginning

Isa 59:1 Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear;
Isa 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.

But then says...



Isa 59:4 No one enters suit justly; no one goes to law honestly; they rely on empty pleas, they speak lies, they conceive mischief and give birth to iniquity.

Then from verse 7:Isa 59:7 Their feet run to evil, and they are swift to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of

Isa 59:9 Therefore justice is far from us, and righteousness does not overtake us; we hope for light, and behold, darkness, and for brightness, but we walk in gloom.
Isa 59:10 We grope for the wall like the blind; we grope like those who have no eyes; we stumble at noon as in the twilight, among those in full vigor we are like dead men.


Paul is not pointing to one set of scriptures, but two: specifically to point out that NONE seek after God, WE "grope in darkness" etc.

You got a citation for that? "most" is a rather subjective term. Rather, He agrees with your opinion: I could just as easily say "Most OT scholars agree" with my view. Such statements, without hard numbers, are meaningless.

This is completely your opinion: Romans 3:26 says nothing of the kind. This is not to "those who waited" for Christ. This is referring to AFTER Christ had come.

Actually he doesn't. The conclusion he is drawing, is that anyone under the Law is not righteous, and does not seek after God. He is using Hebrew parallelism for emphasis...

#1 Are we Jews (those under the law) any better off?

No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,
Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.

#2 Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,


This is unbelievably clear. Paul is saying "None is righteous: none seek after God." He is referring to everyone.

 

I'm aware of all the sources of the verses of the catena, and they all support my point, which is why Paul comes to my conclusion. This is what the law says to those who look to it for righteousness. Those who do so are lumped in with the nations, none of which seek God.

Of course, which is why he comes to my conclusion, not yours. At the very point he needs to make your point to resolve the issue, he makes mine and clarifies it.

For examples in Jewish literature, see b. Sanh. 101a or the Qumran Hymn scroll 1QH 4:30-31; 7.17, 28-29 and 11QPsa 155.8. I can find scholars' quotes if I get time.

It's the most common interpretation of the verse. Paul makes somewhat of the same point in Galatians 3:23-25.

No, he merely says that those under the law were condemned by it and God overlooked their sins until Christ came. Apart from God's covenant, the law has no mercy.

For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin....He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

It sure is. Paul neglects to make your point and concludes with mine. Couldn't get much clearer than that!

 

Let me ask a simple question in regards to those who Paul is speaking of as Fools or Sons of men.

Who here has not rejected God in their life, and who has not at one time been a son of men?

So who here doesnt fall under the condemnation of wickedness that Paul is speaking of?

I will be the first to say I hated God even though I thought I loved Him more than anything. proud, helpless, wicked, sinner, fool, and all of those things described me and everyone in the entire world.

 

Did I say there wasn't? No.
I said the Hebrew word is 'never' transated as such though it can infer the meaning BUT it must be remembered that you can not have a spiritual joining without the s*xual act. This is why the word knew/know is NEVER translated as anything but as a s*xual idiom in these cases. It is true you can not have one without the other but you also can not have the spiritual joining without the physical act preceding it.

That said, though I do not dispute the there is a connection between the act and the joining, my contenstion lies squarely on two points:
1. Both the Hebrew and Greek word for Knew/Know have never been historically translated as a spiritual joining because it was concept that was inferred.
2. Neither the Hebrew nor Greek ever historically translated the word Knew/Know as - love.

No, I am interpreting it from a/the consistent view of those Greek and Hebrew scholars who understood the 1st century (and earlier) mind set and know a great deal more than you or I.

It is obvious from a historical view that neither the Hebrew or Greek form of the word 'knew' has never historically been translated (in any language) as spiritual joining and as such proves my point that you trying to redefine the word.

I think you REALLY need to look at the whole passage here (in context)because you are doing some serious proof-texting here and causing quite a bit of injury to the text in question.

1.
The word 'know/knew' isn't even used here. As I have stated many times, the Greek and Hebrew word for 'know/knew' is used historically as a s*xual idiom and isn't nor has it been used to speak specifically of a spiritual union. It is or can be inferred but is never translated as such.

2.
In verse 15 Paul is speaking of their (those people of the Church) 'bodies' being members of Christ. Then he states shall he (the apostle) join their 'bodies' to a harlot. IOW - shall he take that which is God's body and use it for s*xual immorality? And saved, God fearing person would be indignant and disgusted.
THEN Paul states - Do you know know/understand.. according to you they should have but it is apparent they did not, which is why Paul has to explain it to them.

Anyway, he goes on to basically ask, how can one in such a union with Christ (as to be one spirit) and yet seek to also be united to a prostitute so to become one flesh with her? Is it any wonder he then states for them of Corinith, who were known for their s*xual immoralitly (or at the very least their tolerance of it), to flee fornication?

It is apparent that Paul isn't using this passage to state physical joining is illistrative of the spiritual but is in fact stating that if a person is one with Christ in spirit then their physcial bodies are His as well. And that if a person is one with Christ in Spirit (joined to him in spirit) then one would not 'seek' to use their bodies to engage in s*xual realtion to a harlot and thereby making the body of Christ (meaning you specifically and the church in a general sense) to partake in/be associated with immorality.

Therefore Pauls point isn't about showing a 'deep spiritual bonding' as you assumed, but is in fact about not using that which is Christ's (already joined to Him in Spirit) for the purposes of immorallity (joined in the flesh) which affects not only you but also the body of Christ as well.

No, s*x is a physical act with spiritual ramifications. The passage above was not equating s*x with our union with Christ. It was stating we who are unified with Christ should not be seeking to bring our bodies, which are Christs, into immoralilty because we are bringing Christ into that immoral act.
That doesn't mean that Christ is tainted with sin due to the act anymore than a sunbeam shining on garbage is tainted, as John Macarthur puts it, but it does bring shame and reproach to the body of Christ, both you personally and the Church in general.

 

Continued...

:laugh: There is not one historical document that you can find in which the word (whether Greek or Hebrew) Know/Knew was translated into - a spiritual union.

It does not exist. It's usages in these cases always refers to the 's*xual idiom and that my brother is a fact.

I still see know evidence of the word (whether Greek or Hebrew) being translated as love or your new definition spiritual union.

You give an either/or fallacy of which neither are correct.
I don't use the strongs to much since it has overly simplistic definitions quite often but I will use it and see if you can find - intimate, saving relationship :

Nope, noting in there about 'intimate' unless you are speaking of the s*xual idiom. And nothing stating a 'spiritual union'.
The definition that both Strong's and Thayers gives in relation to the passage or Mat 7:23 is #4 (having an acquaintance with)

A.T. Robertson states this:

Here is the difinition of the word 'acquaintance':

It is of note that A.T. Robertson, Thayer, Strong, and the Greek-English Louw-Nida lexicon all state the same thing in relation to what the word refers to in Mat 7:23 -an aquaintance by experience, and the definition of acquaintance includes both aspects of being by experience and not being intimate.

IOW - Jesus was stating I have never even been acquainted with you, not ever!