Featured "Wrath of God" as used in the Scriptures

Van,

Is not your basic view that the heathen have innate power to generate their own faith in God?

Yet, above you state "...the gospel is the power of God for salvation...". So, which is it?

In point 2, you state "the people of Matthew 23:13 were seeking God." BUT that isn't supported by the verse.

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. ".
​

That verse states those entering are already entering, and that in some manner the false teachers were trying to prevent the redeemed from entering. See the words " those who are entering" is not those choosing to enter, but already chosen and allowed to enter, for the believer the established home is based upon the redeemer. The language action of " are entering" is that of one already on the journey, and one having the authority to enter.

Your foundational verse doesn't support your view.

 

To continue

Point 3 above, Paul is not addressing the heathen in redeemed, for he calls them "breathern". Hardly a term Paul would use for the unsaved.

In point 4, you claim our faith comes before salvation

In this you are partly correct.

For the "measure of faith" (Romans 12:3) is given by God to those redeemed. Therefore, in the expression found in Ephesians 2:8 the faith expressed is the gift of undeserved measure of mercy (grace) which God gives expressed as in the NT as "our" faith. But it is not some human generated innate character that you consider it as being.

Ephesians 2:8. "By the unmerited favor of God (working definition for "grace") you are saved by faith, that (faith) not of yourself, it is the gift of God..."

Do simple language work that you can find from Youngs or Strongs, and you will draw better conclusions.

 

I didn't think I misrepresented you, because are you not contending that human faith generated by even the ungodly is what leads to the "transfer by God into salvation?"

These are your own words from a post above:

Do you disavow your statement and now claim that redeeming faith is a gift of God? I doubt your obstinance would allow such to take place. But there is that hope.

Van, you obviously didn't do the language work that I suggested. Yet, you want to refute.

To answer your points:

1) Seeking God is NOT a mark of spiritual ability to be redeemed. Even the heathen seek god(s).
And as YOU POSTED,

You can't have it both ways, Van.

Either the heathen are drawn to Christ by their own innate ability, or The Father's working specifically on each life to do His will.

2) The folks were NOT prevented in Matthew 23 as you would desire to hold. Christ said that the religious leaders were preventing (read attempting to prevent) but do not stop at that point, for the statement continues by showing they actually enter, for it states, " those who are entering." So, who are the ones entering? Are they not the ones drawn to Christ by the Father? Are they not the redeemed?

I am no longer much account in the languages and must rely upon others for validation.
Therefore if I am wrong, I will submit to the work of more astute language scholarship of the BB.

The word translated "permit" is actually a word of desire such as one who would desire to prevent, to not allow, to not permit... it is not a word that is the work of a present infinitive (such as one might add "to" to a verb).

The sentence, "I want to write a book." doesn't mean that the book is written, or will be written. The same with this word "permit." There is that desire to hinder, not the actual ability to withhold permission. The same use is found in Mark 10:14, were the Lord is stating do not hinder the children.

Certainly, "Paul spoke to them (the Corinthian assembly) as men of flesh" because they were living fleshly with immature thinking as if they were babies in Christ. However, they people Paul wrote were redeemed, but as indeed redeemed not grownup in Christ.

Therefore, your statement

fails for lack of Scriptural support.

Surely, then if taken factually your statement would read that God gives two faiths. One to redeem and then that second blessing of faith for service (sounds like a charismatic view).

The Scriptures state that there is:

4There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.​

I showed you from Ephesians EXACTLY the translation.

Grace has long been defined as God's unmerited favor.
Faith has long been defined as God's gift.​

Unless one recognizes that BOTH the unmerited favor (grace) and the faith is from God, they are doomed to make the error in which you are entrenched.

Such a one cannot take the rest of the Ephesians passage literally.

"10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." as literal, because they will always point to their own faith as the initiation factor discrediting God."​

 

Lets examine each of your numbered points for accuracy.

Van, did I not copy and paste your EXACT STATEMENT(s)?

The question was raised because you so obviously contradicted your self.

I wasn't presenting but the mere inconsistency of your own words.

The Scriptures present faith that is righteous as not some human generated faith that you proclaim as "our faith," but belief, just as John 3 states belief is required for salvation.

Such belief comes from the changed heart as the writer of Romans makes clear. Heart change first and then the expression(s) of belief "For with your heart you believe and are justified, and with your mouth you confess and are saved." Romans 10:10

WHO changes the heart?

The writer of the Romans writes that the inward work is by the Spirit. .

"But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God."

And again in Acts: "Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you."

And again in the book of John: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”

When one expresses belief it is a reflection of a change that has already taken place in the heart.

Such a change is evidenced by living Godly compared to the ungodly living that was previous to the changed heart.

Readers, do not be confused by Vans statements of "our faith" and the contention here. What Van presents (in brief) is that humans have some innate ability to generate an acceptable faith that will in some manner get God's attention and they will then be "transferred" from the category of lost into that of saved.

In the Scriptures, "our faith" is that which God grants each believer, so it follows that it is truly "our faith." But it is NOT human generated hope, or ambition, or reliance, such as one might put in a ladder or chair. Rather, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

BUT, did YOU not say that human faith is the instigation of the process?

Are you not presenting conflicting statements?

Either God does it all, or human work is involved. There is no Biblical support for humankind having some work of human generated faith instigating salvation.

It is obvious that you have not done the recommended elementary language work, so why even try to show your failed thinking.

Is your timidity generated from the fear you will discover you will need to revise your view?

Perhaps it is that shattering your perspective might leave you vulnerable?

I did not, rather, showed that Paul spoke to BELIEVERS who had remained immature.

He WAS NOT addressing the ungodly heathen unbelievers, as YOU desired to appoint definition to this part of the Scriptures.

Are you now going to claim that ONLY believers can feed on and understand the milk of the Gospel?
Milk meaning the nourishing ability of the Scriptures.

This would indicate a change in your held view.

Does not the same writer (Paul) clearly express that the natural (unsaved) person DOES NOT gain anything from the Scriptures? (I Corinthians 2:4)

You are assuming what the Scriptures do not teach.

There are not multiple faiths, but a single faith that is measured to every believer as God desires, in which to accomplish His purpose that was already established by His desire.

There is not "instilling faith" found in the Scriptures. Had there been, I am certain that you would have at least given a reference to the words.

The best I can look, the Bible NEVER uses the term "crediting our faith," but does use the term "credited for righteousness."

The writer of Romans 4 (which you use in an attempt to bolster your view) demonstrates that "Faith was credited to Abraham as Righteousness." (4:9)

Faith was not from Abraham but given to ("Credited to"), so that Abraham's faith (that faith credited to, not coming from) was righteous.

If the Scriptures state (and they do) "There is none righteous, no not one" (chapter 3:10), then it must be that the faith of Abraham (chapter 4) was righteous that came from God and not some human generated fallen faith.

One other point.

Van you have claim that I posted what was unbiblical.
Are you claiming that I have become a heretic?

You also claim that salvation is conditional.
Have you reneged on Baptist doctrine?

 

Actually, read the last part of the verse. You will see the "unmerited favor of God" grants the measure of faith.

I have no disagreement, with this part of the post.

Except, there are those who would endorse some view that all have ability to hear, but you and I both know that is not Biblical. John 1 "To them gave He the power (authority, ability) ...".

The view endorsed by Van is that innate human generated ability initiates the contact with God who then looks to see if the ability is sufficient to warrant transferring that person from the category of lost to that of saved. He uses the words "credits our faith" but that is just not an accurate portrayal supportable by Scripture.

I know such is not your thinking, but it is that of Van which makes such a salvation that of human work.

 

Men believe, because they have ears to hear, and their heart is changed, and they then can openly express belief.
Romans 10

10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.​

No one believes and then the heart is changed, even the worldly know that thinking is backwards, for all that is of life and its expressions come from the heart. Mark 7:21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,..."

Van's thinking is that the humans have the innate ability to self generate faith acceptable to God and having gotten God's attention are then transferred into salvation. That is a works based salvation.

Secondly, Who in John 1:12 is given the "power?"
All men, or those that did not turn from the light?

Did those that did not turn from the light "do anything?"
NO, only those who turned away from the light.
Those that did not turn from the light but embraced, received, did not turn away, did not shun, ..were granted the authority, power, ability, ...

The point being that not everyone is innately granted such ability.

You know that to be true both in practical experience as a pastor as well as your own study of Scripture.

For does not the God of heaven currently have the Jews in such a state of unbelief, yet will at His pleasure bring them to repentance and salvation?

Not to change the subject but to address the obvious question, can those who turned from the light turn again to the light. That is the strict definition of repentance - to turn and change direction. However, the Apostle John would question the ability of such men in later chapters, and the topic would reaffirm the pointed purposed salvation of the individual as exampled by the eunuch, Paul, Philippian Jailer, and others who Paul stresses in his letters were specifically chosen by God for redemption.

But again, that is a discussion for a different thread.

The problem (as I see it) is that often one uses the word "receive" as having to reach out and take it. That isn't the picture given in John 1.

The understanding of Ephesians 2:8 begins with 2:1, 2, and 3.

Further is the understanding that the work of God makes the dead alive (quickens) 2:4, 5, 6 and 7.

Finally, getting to verse 8.

Often, those who argue over verse 8 have not recognized all that God has done as Paul states in the first 7 verses.

For the reader, here is the verses:

1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.​

Does anyone see in this passage anything about some self ability to express human faith in which God recognizes as good enough to grant us being transferred from lost to that of saved?

That is basically what Van's argument expresses, and what is unsupported by Scriptures.

The OP is upon the wrath of God.

See how the unbeliever is "by nature the children of wrath" even as the believers were at one time?

Here wrath takes on a personification and able to bear offspring.

The picture of God's settled indignation and opposition to that nature should not be overlooked, and presents the salvation He prepared beforehand (before the believer was saved) (verse 10) even that more precious.

 

I agree, but that does not discredit nor even dim the expressions of HOW that belief takes place from Eph. 2.

Perhaps, but this isn't the first trip down this road with Van.

Look at this quote from a few posts before this:

I just don't read it any other way than what he states and I restated.

To understand the word "receive" in John 1, please pay attention to the context of how it is used.

John is all about comparing and contrasting in his writing.

He is showing the difference between those that actively turn from the light and those who do not (they receive the light). He is NOT using the wording in such a way as to indicate that the person DOES anything.

A modern day example is when a parent turns on the light to the children's bedroom, and they by nature duck under the covers, or by nature they do not. What is the nature of one turning from the light in comparison to the one that does not turn from the light, that receives the light? Did the person who "received" the light do anything? Did they turn on the light? Did they have any authority or power over the light? Or did they merely not turn away, but received, embraced, took in, accepted,... the light?

Such words as received, embraced, took in, accepted, ... can all be active and show some action taking place by that one acted upon, however, the context of John 1 does not allow for that meaning, but that the one receiving is actually passive and unresistant to the light and the effects of the light other than interaction in (not with) the light. "Walk in the light..."

It is unfortunate that any would select a verse here and there and do not attend to the context and the use of the words and phrasing of that context. It leads to much unnecessary disputation.

I consider your response most weak in this area. For the gift of salvation encompasses far more than salvation. Just as Paul was expressing throughout the whole chapter or more. There is the package wrapping, the attitude of the giver, the expressed response of the receiver... all which Paul addresses.
You and I agree that the grace is defined as unmerited favor and that the salvation is freely bestowed on all who believe?

If so, then what Paul states in the context of the verse you highlight is far more important for the conclusion of the paragraph is that it is ALL prepared and planned by God before one comes to the point of salvation. Christ is surely the author and finisher.

Here we part.

For with this statement you depart from the statement of Paul in the total of Ephesians.

Argue with him about it. For, what you are embracing is similar to that of Van. A works based salvation in which humankind must "do" something in order to get God's attention.

Paul clearly summarizes, "10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." to be taken as truthful in your scheme of human effort?

Your view that it was "corporate election" is just extremely weak at best. The whole passage is to be taken specifically as individual believers in which God has specified for His purpose. The word "we" is to be taken as individual members of the select group called redeemed. It separates the individual members of the select group of redeemed from the individual members of the select group that are "condemned already" because they are by nature the children of wrath.

We do not argue on the method or mode of the delivery of the Gospel.

The argument resides in the innate ability, or lack there of, for a person as Paul describes in the opening verses of Chapter 2.

Paul places the total authority and salvation including the faith as preplanned and purposed by God.

That should prevent any person from being able to say, "The ungodly lost spiritually dead individuals first put their wholehearted trust in Christ, and then if God credits that faith as righteousness, He transfers them into Christ where they undergo the circumcision of Christ, the washing of regeneration and arise in Christ a new creation, made righteous, blameless and perfect. Thus the justification occrs after God puts a believer into Christ." (to quote Van)

 

Then we will disagree.

Context is always the key to interpretation. No matter the passage. Context must always take precedence over individual word meanings. For almost every word, even in English, has multiple uses and meanings.

If one just takes the word meaning alone, even in English, great misconception may occur.

For example:
Run, Spot. Run.

Why? Where? When? These are not answered outside of some context clues, even if I look up the meaning of each word.

First, Paul was not in discussions with Jews, but Ephesian Gentiles. If they had some concept of the Jewish law, it was more likely more limited than our own, for they did not have the the first five books of Moses, nor were they likely to have that as a frame of reference.

Second, when one receives a gift, it certainly is acted upon AFTER it is not before it is even disclosed. That is why the argument doesn't have traction, even if it wasn't discussing God's work of salvation.

Through out the Scriptures the believer is presented as the respondent to the gift, not the initiator of the gift.

Look, again, at this passage to see the sequence. First, the writer gives a broad view (v. 8) first part. After the dash, the writer presents that the preaching may certainly have results. Now, don't get too far ahead thinking that the mouth is before the heart. For in the 10th verse, the writer gets even more specific as to the sequence.

8But what does it say? “The Word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.​

So, it must follow that the preaching of the Scriptures is used by the Holy Spirit to quicken the heart causing belief resulting in righteousness, and the person cannot withhold such a change and confesses unto salvation. That is they confess they are saved.

No where is there a sequence as Van would subscribe. Which is the problem with his view.

Not exactly what Ephesians states, is it? But, I can understand how your view of corporate salvation would oblige such contrivance.

My apology.

I certainly was too sharp in my response. I was posting as I usually have to do with Van who wants to proclaim what I write as un-biblical, so I usually have to take stronger terms with him, because he remains obstinate that the innate human condition has the ability to express faith in which God will count as righteous.

I so do appreciate your gentle spirit.

 

There was a time I would have agreed with your thinking.

However, is it not true that it is the Father that opens the ears to hear by the work of the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit?