Jacob I loved and Esau I hated = individual election?

So if Abraham had not taken his son Isaac up the mountain to sacrifice him to God, all those years of faithful service to God would have gone up in smoke? Give me a break.

What James is saying is faith is visibly dead without works. Saying I have faith and then not doing works wrought in faith is likened by James to me telling a man who is hungry and cold to be warm and filled and not actually giving him the things he needs to be warmed and filled. Men show faith by works. The bible doesn't simply tell you that Abraham had faith, it shows you his faith by his works. When you read Hebrews 11 you see this pattern time and again: by faith Abel did this, by faith Enoch did that, by faith Noah did this, by faith Abraham did that, etc. Faith is visible through fruit produced by it. When one confesses Christ, they are manifesting faith. When one does things that are pleasing to God, he is manifesting faith.

 

Paul is not at all intending to describe a pre-cross and a post-cross condition.

Is that prior to Christ's actual death on the cross (AD 30 or so)? Or is that before we respond in repentance and faith to the gospel?

Actually, I don't have to find a passage, I just have to show that you are not interpreting Romans 5 correctly.

Hence:

This you cannot have. In v. 18, Paul is finishing the thought from v. 12 (an anacoluthon). So, in v. 18 and 19, Paul is finishing the argument and summarizing and in doing so he uses a parallel structure:

• (18a) One trespass led to condemnation for all men corresponding to (19a) by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners

• (18b) One act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men corresponding to (19b) by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous

Paul is not intending to say that "all are brought justification." Why? The parallel of the passages. If you insist on your interpretation you have to concede that not everyone was made a sinner by Adam's trespass and I don't think you'd suggest this.

Also, your view basically denies a penal-substitution view of the atonement. Your view is much more in line with a Christus Victor idea. After all, it must be the case that Jesus' death actually accomplished its intended purpose--to redeem sinners. Jesus' death did not only make that redemption possible.

Jesus' death did not bring justification to all men, as you argue. Justification, being a legal term--especially in Paul, means to be declared not guilty. Even according to your own system of theology, it cannot be that all men are Justified by Christ's death because then all men would be justified and we know that is not the case (there are sheep and goats and there will be a separation).

Your view on Romans 5, therefore, is incorrect in the context of Paul's writings and the Bible as a whole.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

They cause no problem at all, once you read them in Greek. Jesus is using a second-class conditional statement which is, by definition and formula, a contrary-to fact condition. Because Jesus uses the second-class condition, it is certain that He is not intending to say Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented. He is merely using them as an example--a well-known example of sin and its consequences.

I don't know if the fire is hotter. But we know that judgment is varied in its forms. That's what the second-class was used to illustrate--the judgment.

I'll be a bit ugly here, purely in jest! "Noah needed a burning bush?" What Bible are you reading? :smilewinkgrin: OK. Ugliness over. This has made me think of some bad typos or gaffes in speech I've made. None are immune!

First, the Jonah example doesn't apply--Jonah was already a believer who was being disobedient (something even the best of Christians can still do). Jonah was obviously not brought to faith in God through the fish. He was merely returned to the mission God had for him.

Secondly, I don't know why you think the effectual call and the burning bush or a blinding light need to be two separate things. Calvinists believe the effectual call, obviously, but the call never implies a restriction to a particular means. Therefore, the blinding light on the Damascus road was a means of calling effectually. In the lives of many Christians, the means of calling is different, but it is an effectual calling nonetheless.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Thank you Winman. This is a very good explanation of what happened during the temptation. You do seem to have a good grasp of theology. It's a pleasure to listen to you.

 

In James 2 he is discussing faith and works, as you referenced. His example there is Abraham. He points to an event in Abraham's life when he, by faith, followed God's commandment to sacrifice his son Isaac to God as a burnt offering. This, says James, fullfills Genesis 15:6 which said that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. If Abraham had not obeyed, if he had not had works to go with his faith, would his faith been any less geniune? Of course not. Would that have shown that he wasn't saved? No. He still had years of faithful service to God in his past. The point James is making is not that only true faith does this or that. His point, rather, is to exhort us to exhibit our faith by works, like Abraham did.

 

You are incorrect. Sins before the cross had to be paid because the blood of bulls and goats can't ultimately take away sin.

If, as you say, the sin of the world has indeed been atoned for, why are people sent to hell? I know..."Because they don't believe." But wouldn't that unbelief be a sin and wasn't all sin atoned for? How can this be? It can't.

It is becoming apparent that you theology is Pelagian.

But there are different genres of literature and nuance of the Greek language--which apparently you patently deny. The second-class conditional sentence is what it is--a fact of the Greek language. You only want to deny it because it thwarts one of your precious presuppositions. The second-class is the contrary-to-fact condition, sorry if you don't like it. If you don't like it, that really too bad--take it up with Homer, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, etc.

By the way, your smugness is noted. You claim to quote scripture (in the Tyre/Sidon, Sodom/Gomorrah passage) when, in reality, you are quoting a translation. Now, translation are very good and quite sufficient. However, there is nuance in the original language that no translation can capture. This is why seminarians learn Greek and Hebrew.

Greek, for instance, has the passive which means the subject is acted upon. This is especially important when considering Jesus' words in John 3:3 "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." That phrase is not imperative and it is passive. Jesus is not telling Nicodemus to do something. Rather, He is saying something must be done to Nicodemus.

Any true expositor must see what the author's main point is--and that includes grammar, vocabulary, syntax, etc. If we are not taking the author's main point, we are just fooling ourselves. If we don't search for the author's main point we are not placing ourselves in submission to scripture and we are, in fact, placing scripture in submission to us. And if you do that, you have deeper problems.

The pattern I see developing in you is that you want scripture to say something or mean something that goes against the author's main point or the grammar that he uses. That's dangerous ground.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

You said James is teaching that if one doesn't perserver their faith wasn't real. I asked the question, what if Abraham (James' chief example of faith and works) didn't obey God by faith? Would his faith have been exposed as not a real faith?

 

Your passion is blinding you to what I actually said.

I said: They cause no problem at all, once you read them in Greek. Jesus is using a second-class conditional statement which is, by definition and formula, a contrary-to fact condition. Because Jesus uses the second-class condition, it is certain that He is not intending to say Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented. He is merely using them as an example--a well-known example of sin and its consequences.

Of course the contrary-to-fact is that the signs were not performed. I was not intending, as you suppose, to say that they couldn't have responded. I don't know if they could have, even though you suppose you do. As you will see above, I said "[Jesus] is using them [Sodom and Gomorrah] as an example" to illustrate the woes He is pronouncing. He is not intending to say Sodom and Gomorrah could have or would have repented. The textual unit is an example. Jesus is, likely, using hyperbole.

By the way, we both have the cities wrong (if we're talking about Matthew 11). But, that's not too important right now.

As for translations...even the best Hebrew and Greek scholars will tell you that no translation is perfect--not even my beloved ESV. Many things don't come through. Does that mean that translations are not sufficient? No, of course not. It does mean, however, that to find the main point, sometimes one has to dig deeper--into the original texts. It is the same as reading a biography about someone and reading that same person's autobiography. The autobiography will have nuance that is lost in the biographer's work. It is always better to go straight the proverbial horse's mouth.

Besides you putting words into my mouth, your disrespect for the text is astonishing. Greek is not a "trick." It is the original. Sometimes nuance is desperately important. To claim "I'll stick to scripture" and place that over/against searching to find the point of a passage by consulting the original language is disingenuous at best. Essentally, you are placing yourself against the text when you make ridiculous statements like this. Sad.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

First, I'm not "putting words into Jesus' mouth." I'm simply pointing out that Jesus is making an example and in doing so, He is not intending to say "they would have believed" as a simple statement of fact. Obviously, they did not believe. Is it because no signs and wonders were performed? It is certainly possible that God could have done signs and wonders and through them called people to Himself. We know He didn't. The passage is an example and not intended as a theological discourse. The same can be said of a parable.

Preachers drive me crazy when they preach a parable and make doctrine out of them. Why? Because parables are illustrative by nature and, with rare exception--like the parable of the sower--are not explained theologically and are only to illustrate a point which has already been made in the text.

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. I still think the Olive Tree is the people of God.

 

But, you are clearly not understanding context. According to your practice of "quoting" scripture, I could say "Psalm 14 says "there is no God." See, all I'm doing is quoting scripture. But context, of course, is important in Psalm 14 and every other passage because the full text of Psalm 14:1 is "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Likewise, when you claim that "all" have been justified according to Romans 3:21ff, you are missing an essential contextual component. In this passage "all" does not mean everyone without exception. In Romans 3, "all" means Jews and Gentiles alike.

How is this shown? The end of chapter 2 makes it abundantly clear that Paul is talking to Jews. He continues that thought through chapter 3 and then, in verse 9 he addresses both Jews and Gentiles (Greeks).

When we get to v. 21, Paul discusses the Law, which, in Paul, refers to the Law of Moses, and says that the righteousness of God has been made know apart from the law.

V. 23 "All have sinned" refers to both Jews and Gentiles. V. 24 says "all are justified by grace as a gift" and this refers to both Jews and Gentiles and it points to the theological fact that grace is unearnable (contrary to the Jew's understanding)

V. 25 calls Jesus a propitiation, meaning that He turned back God's wrath by taking it for us (as a substitute).

V. 25-26 answers the "why?" Because He (God) had passed over--not paid for--former sins. The sin of David, Moses, Abraham, etc. had not been paid, because the blood of bulls and goats can't ultimately take away sin. God is not able to forgive sin by just "writing it off;" He requires a payment. Jesus is that payment for the ones in the OT who's faith had been counted as righteousness.

V. 26 clearly says that God is just and the one who justifies. But, whom does He justify "the one who has faith in Christ."

Now, context again, Paul's use of the word "Justification" is usually, if not always in Romans, written in judicial/legal language. Paul's usage of justification means "declared not guilty."

Paul is essentially saying that both Jews and Gentiles are saved by the same sacrifice of Christ. He is not saying that everyone without exception is "justified."

Certainly, you would not suggest that even unbelievers are counted as "not guilty," unless, of course, you are a universalist.

Blessings,

The Archangel