Where does believing faith come from part 3

[webdog]

Well, no...that's not true in Greek. Perhaps English, but certainly not Greek. If this was the case, I wouldn't have had to memorize those infernal paradigms.

The facts are these: The passive is formulaic and it is indefatigably and by definition an action done to the subject, not by the subject.

And the "context" changes at v. 20 (I'm not sure the translation you prefer...it looks like NIV).

Having an action done to a subject doesn't describe how the action is done.

Verse 20 contains the post-positive particle γάρ which introduces a clause which is more explanatory. So, Paul is explaining that at one point in time the recipients of the letter were slaves to sin. Also, there is Greek parallelism here, for which Paul is well known.

Now, Paul does exhort to present their own members as slaves to righteousness, but that is based on his ongoing argument (most notably v. 18) stating they were set free from sin (passive) and they became slaves of righteousness (again, passive).

Again, the "how" is not addressed. In understanding slavery in those times one arrives at the "how".

 

[Rippon]

Is it relief? I never saw that as an attribute of God? Can you point that one out to me Rippon?

Okay, He's happy then. The main point I was making is that Y-O-U made that choice. You were responsible because of some superior qualities that you have in contradistinction to millions of others who didn't have your incredible insight, intelligence, wisdom or whatever.

Of course I think that you or anyone else doesn't choose of their own accord. It's not an independent action on the part of a person. All glory is due to God alone.

 

[Rippon]

Take the free will out of man and he becomes nothing more than a robot.

You have returned to your old mantra again.

In other words God makes them robots.

I sometimes suspect that you must run a toy store on the side as much as you talk about robots.

They are not robots.

You speak of robots about as much as WD talks about strawmen.

I don't believe that he created robots either. But most Calvinists I know--including yourself--speak as though he did.

There you go again Jimmy Carter. You, as a non-Cal,do all of this kind of talking.

It is not random is it. God doesn't pull out of the random clay those who don't want to be pulled out.

God does nothing randomly. It's disgraceful to even say such a thing.

 

[The Archangel]

My bible (KJV) does not say slave, it says servant. Big difference. And even slaves can be disobedient to their masters, and even escape.

The word is δοῦλος which is translated slave or bond-servant. It means someone who serves in obedience to someone else's will.

Slaves are disobedient, this is true. But escaping is not in view here. Mostly, Paul talks about being set free (by God).

Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

Obviously you do not understand the words "Let not" or "yield". Why would Paul have to give these commands to a regenerated man if Calvinism is true? Calvinism says God's grace is irresistable. If Calvinism is true, these commands are absolutely unneccesary and absurd. If the regenerated man is now a slave to righteousness, he cannot possibly sin.

Tell me, have you ceased to sin 100% since you were regenerated?

I do understand. Paul exhorts Christians all the time, when I preach I exhort all the time. Paul is not making the case that, once regenerated, we stop sinning. He doesn't even claim this for himself.

As you and every other Christian knows (myself greatly included), sin is a fact of life, even for the Christian. But that doesn't negate anything and it doesn't make anything absurd. We all know that we will not be completely free from sin until we stand in His presence. Like Paul, we wait to be delivered from "this body of death."

And notice in verse 17 that Paul says "but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you". Whoa, Paul is giving these people credit for obeying the gospel and stealing from the sovereignty of God!

Paul is not glorifying God that the Roman Church's Christians believe the gospel. Paul is glorifying God that the Roman Christians are obeying a certain standard of teaching. A standard to which they were committed (committed being a passive verb). Someone, namely God, committed them to a standard of teaching and He is causing them to be obedient to it (is it a perfect obedience? No. But, there is an obedience to God that was not there before and it is growing as they progress in their sanctification).

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Dr. Bob]

I was raised a Roman Catholic. I never heard the gospel until I was 20. At that point in time I had to make the decision whether to trust Christ or to reject him. I did not have that choice before that time. Thankfully I made the right choice.

There is so much unbiblical in this. And unbelievably arrogant humanism.

YOU were a rebel against the Law and God before you were born. (In - not by - sin I was conceived)

You've always chosen wrong even with little or no knowledge of God

And YOU made the right choice? Bwaaa-haahaa

"You haven't chosen Me; I have chosen you." ~ Jesus Christ

 

[DHK]

Okay, He's happy then. The main point I was making is that Y-O-U made that choice. You were responsible because of some superior qualities that you have in contradistinction to millions of others who didn't have your incredible insight, intelligence, wisdom or whatever.

Of course I think that you or anyone else doesn't choose of their own accord. It's not an independent action on the part of a person. All glory is due to God alone.

w
Although the story of the prodigal son is used in two different ways (some see the son as a backslidden "son" and others as an unsaved physical son not putting a lot of emphasis on the father in the story representing God), there is a lesson that we can learn from it. Presuming the son to be a lost son of a father, when the father receives him back, there is joy. The son comes back of his own accord. He "comes to his senses." He realizes what he must do. He becomes convicted. Why? Not only because of the desperate situation that he is in, but quite possibly because of what he had heard while he was with his father (the gospel message so to speak). He made the decision. He came to the father. It was his choice. The father received him, and rejoiced.
And what was the application that Christ gave: The angels in heaven rejoice when one sinner repents.

It is demeaning of you to believe that the glory of God is taken away by those that believe that God is glorified when people trust Christ as their Saviour. It seems that this is an issue of pride with you, not an issue of the glory of God.

 

[webdog]

"You haven't chosen Me; I have chosen you." ~ Jesus Christ

...said to who?

 

[webdog]

You speak of robots about as much as WD talks about strawmen.

Says something about your debate tactics, eh?

 

[OldRegular]

Isn't it strange how those who believe in the Sovereign Grace of God in Salvation are accused of being guilty of pride by those who claim that their salvation was by Me and Jesus?

 

[The Archangel]

...yet Paul had the opportunity to use "choose" and didn't.

What does the word mean in Romans 11:2? Context shows exactly what Paul is thinking. Israel is called God's known people? No. They are called the chosen people. This is throughout scripture.

So, he used "choose" and that is beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Abraham is listed in the next line of thought, not as part of the idolaters.

That is not so. Abraham is listed along with Terah and Nahor. But the literal translation, and it is quite wooden, is:

Terah father of Abraham and father of Nahor and they served gods other.

The interesting thing is the vav-conjunctive attached directly to the verb "they served" (and this is how Hebrew works...it's annoying!) so the emphasis is on the named persons. Further, the last statement in the clause is "and they served other gods." Abraham's name occurs before that statement and is, therefore, the object of that statement.

I believe you are wrong and it supports the understanding Abraham was not a wicked idolater as you allege. I never claimed they were "more authoritative than Scripture", btw.

I'm glad you don't hold tradition above scripture as it is a dark path. You are free to believe I'm wrong, but I'm not interpreting, per se. This is what scripture is plainly stating.

Now, I know you'll probably hold doggedly to your presupposition that faith must preceded God's working in us--and you're free to do so. But, you'll be holding to your presuppositions in direct contradiction and opposition to the clear text of scripture.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[DHK]

There is so much unbiblical in this. And unbelievably arrogant humanism.

Be kind to me doc. I don't want to have to edit your post.

YOU were a rebel against the Law and God before you were born. (In - not by - sin I was conceived)

There is no question that we are all under sin; that we are all condemned without Christ; on the road to Hell.

You've always chosen wrong even with little or no knowledge of God

Well, yes and no. "Even the plowing of the wicked is an abomination."
"We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags,"
That doesn't mean that a man can't do something good; it means that any thing good done for God isn't good. In other words it is impossible to get to heaven by good works.
The Bible says: Honor your father and mother.
Though I was not saved, it was "good" that I kept that command.

And YOU made the right choice? Bwaaa-haahaa

Much of the time, yes.

"You haven't chosen Me; I have chosen you." ~ Jesus Christ

That verse is John 15:16. Jesus is not speaking to an unsaved person, but to his disciples which he chose to be disciples. They were believing Jews awaiting the coming of the Messiah.

The entire verse:
John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
--Really doesn't sound like it is talking of salvation here.

 

[The Archangel]

Having an action done to a subject doesn't describe how the action is done.

This is true to a certain extent, but this statement is an obfuscation of sorts. We have not necessarily been debating the "how" of the action, but the "who." The passive means, especially in the cases already mentioned, that we are not the active agents, someone else outside of us is.

Further, many instances of the passive, are called the "Divine Passive" because it is understood that God is the "Who" acting to set free from sin and "enslave" us to righteousness.

Again, the "how" is not addressed. In understanding slavery in those times one arrives at the "how".

No. Because a proper grasp of slavery in that day, which I have, is not the issue--the text is. The text says what it says and it says God sets us free.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Rippon]

It is demeaning of you to believe that the glory of God is taken away by those that believe that God is glorified when people trust Christ as their Saviour. It seems that this is an issue of pride with you, not an issue of the glory of God.

There you go again. God alone receives glory and he is both the Author and finisher of our salvation. Is that prideful on my part that God alone and not a person such as yourself deserves credit for a right choice?

Of course in your view God knew about your choice -- He got the memo -- but He was not the primary agent -- you were -- it was your decision not His, as you have often pointed out.

 

[psalms109:31]

Jesus

What we praise is God through Jesus and what He has done for us on the cross, without what Jesus did we would have no salvation. You want to make us and others think that we praise ourselves, but in fact we praise and glorify Jesus and through that praise and glorify God.

 

[Rippon]

Says something about your debate tactics, eh?

It says an awful lot about your debate tactics when you mention the SM at every opportunity -- many times when you are telling others -- not me.

You need to burn that dummy made of hay once and for all.

 

[Amy.G]

God does nothing randomly. It's disgraceful to even say such a thing.

Then on what basis does God choose one person over another?

 

[Amy.G]

Although the story of the prodigal son is used in two different ways (some see the son as a backslidden "son" and others as an unsaved physical son not putting a lot of emphasis on the father in the story representing God), there is a lesson that we can learn from it. Presuming the son to be a lost son of a father, when the father receives him back, there is joy. The son comes back of his own accord. He "comes to his senses." He realizes what he must do.

I also notice that the Father did not go after the prodigal and drag him home. He waited patiently for his son to return to Him.

 

[Jeep Dragon]

Then on what basis does God choose one person over another?

Mind my jumping in since I rarely post here?

I would like to pose a few questions...

If the salvation decision originates in man, then man should be able to explain why some people choose God and some do not. Right?

If the salvation decision originates in God, then why does a man have to be able to explain why God chooses one person over another?

How can man know the mind of God?

 

[The Archangel]

Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Please tell me, and do not ignore this question. Did the apostle Peter here on the Day of Pentacost, when the Holy Spirit fell on him with tongues of fire, and speaking in tongues violate God's sovereignty here by telling men to "save yourselves"??

This is a great and fair question. The problem lies in the translation. The word for "Save" is an aorist passive imperative. A better translation would be "Be saved." NASB translates it as "Be saved." My beloved, yet imperfect ESV, doesn't get it right.

So, because it is passive, Peter is not exhorting to save one's self. He is calling people to be saved which some do "welcome his word."

Even Calvinists call on people to "be saved." Somewhere in the course of each and every message I preach I share the gospel and exhort people, much like Peter did, to be saved.

So, the KJV doesn't render this correctly, along with some other translations too.

You notice that explanation mark there? You don't see that often in scripture. Jesus was being very emphatic that he longed to save the people of Jerusalem, but they refused.

I think you meant "exclamation" mark, an easy goof that spell-check wouldn't catch. The problem is that there are no punctuation marks in the original. The exclamation mark is rightly assumed. But, it is true that the people of Jerusalem were not willing. Unwillingness is emblematic of the Jews of Jesus' day (under the burden of the Pharisees, as they had hijacked OT Judaism). Unwillingness is not the issue. The issue is how are any of us willing? We are made so by God.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Amy.G]

I would like to pose a few questions...

Or...you could just answer my question.


It was said that God does not choose randomly who He will save. So there must be a reason that He chooses to save one and passes over another. What is that reason? If there is no reason or basis for His choices, then He chooses randomly.