A non-Calvinistic & non-Arminian interpretation of Romans 3:10-18

[George Antonios]

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.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Rom 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

To sum up the video:
Given dozens of Bible passages (which are just as true as Romans 3:10-18) that speak of men (often unregenerate) being righteous, doing good, understanding, seeking, and fearing God, including the passages that Paul quotes in Romans 3:10-18; given James' point that one can do the whole law yet become guilty of all through a single sin; the only sensible conclusion is that Paul is not stating that:
unregenerate man cannot do anything good at all,
but that unregenerate man cannot do anything good perfectly at all,
and as such (given James' point) man becomes altogether guilty relative to God's standard.
It's not that man cannot do any good,
it's that many cannot do any good enough.
It's not that man cannot seek God, it's that man does not seek God enough.
It's really simple.

P.S. if you're going to dislike the video, please make sure you watch it first, then dislike it all you want.

 

[AustinC]

George tell me what you think Paul is arguing in his apologetic discussion from Romans 1 through Romans 12.
Paul quotes from many passages in the Bible over the course of his apologetic argument, so based upon what you think is Paul's main argument, what is Paul getting at with his statement in Romans 3:10-18?

Frankly, I couldn't care less about what others think. I want to know what you think.

 

[George Antonios]

George tell me what you think Paul is arguing in his apologetic discussion from Romans 1 through Romans 12.
Paul quotes from many passages in the Bible over the course of his apologetic argument, so based upon what you think is Paul's main argument, what is Paul getting at with his statement in Romans 3:10-18?

Frankly, I couldn't care less about what others think. I want to know what you think.

That's my video brother.

 

[AustinC]

That's my video brother.

George tell me what you think Paul is arguing in his apologetic discussion from Romans 1 through Romans 12.
Paul quotes from many passages in the Bible over the course of his apologetic argument, so based upon what you think is Paul's main argument, what is Paul getting at with his statement in Romans 3:10-18?

 

[SGO]

Great to see you back.

 

[AustinC]

That's my video brother.

George, I watched/listened to your 35 minute lecture. Here's what I note:
1) You do not understand the apologetic argument Paul is making from Romans 1 through 12 and thus you don't get Paul's point.
2) Around the 4 minute mark you say "All our righteousness is as filthy rags, but they are still righteous."

No...they are not righteous. You are wrong.

3) You say "some do right, but not perfectly." (5 minute mark)

No, they do not.

4) You don't grasp Paul's topic statement in Romans 1:17 (a quote from Habakkuk 2:4) stating that men are justified by faith alone. Paul is making a legal argument regarding justification under the law of God and no one is justified by their own works.
Romans 2 shows us that all humans will have their works judged. Those works are all unrighteous (nothing good) but God justifies the Christian...in Christ Jesus, not in the human flesh, which is sinful. Christ Jesus justifies people by his imputation of his righteousness, not because humans seek God.

5) Cornelius was justified by faith previous to Peter coming. Cornelius was an OT saint that God chose to show how Jesus made the way for all nations, tribes, and tongues.
You say Cornelius was elect, but not regenerate.
Cornelius was elect and justified by faith before meeting Peter. Peter revealed Messiah to Cornelius.

6) You try to force Paul to fit the context of the Psalms, yet Paul, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, uses the Psalms to make his legal point about being justified by faith alone, apart from works. Paul is not confined to an exegesis of the Psalms, yet you are attempting to confine Paul so you can reject Paul's argument.

7) You falsely state that a person can be "unregenerate, yet be seeking God" in complete contradiction to what Paul states.

The elect did not seek God. God sought out the elect.

8) You assert there are some righteous before they are redeemed. Yet Paul asserts there are none righteous. You deny what God tells you.

9) You take a wild left turn into the tribulation, showing your dispensational theology, but Romans 3 has nothing to do with the tribulation. That section of your lecture is of no value at all to Paul's legal argument.

10) You say "Men do seek God and men are righteous to some degree."

Paul and God say otherwise.

11) At around the 29:30 mark you say " God sees some attempt, some desire for truth ( in a man) and graciously reveals himself to that person" (because of that persons attempt)

This makes salvation merit based and not by grace alone.

12) You say "He that seeketh findeth."

Your statement is utterly false.

Read and understand Paul's full argument from Romans 1-12 as you are entirely. missing Paul's point in establishing our justification by faith, through Jesus imputed righteousness alone.

George, your insistence on a free will that is neutral reminds me of Jonathan Edwards book "The freedom of the will." In it Edwards states this:

A person, whose strength is no more than sufficient to lift the weight of one hundred pounds, is as truly and really unable to lift one hundred and one pounds, as ten thousand pounds; but yet he is further from being able to lift the latter weight than the former; and so, according to the common use of speech, has a greater Inability for it. So it is in moral Inability. A man is truly morally unable to choose contrary to a present inclination, which in the least degree prevails; or, contrary to that motive, which, all things considered, has strength and advantage now to move the Will, in the least degree, superior to all other motives in view: but yet he is further from ability to insist a very strong habit, and a violent and deeply rooted inclination, or a motive vastly exceeding all others in strength. And again, the Inability may, in some respects, be called greater in some instances than others, as it may be more general and extensive to all acts of that kind. So men may be said to be unable in a different sense, and to be further from moral ability, who have that moral Inability which is general and habitual, than they who have only that Inability which is occasional and particular. Thus in cases of natural inability; he that is born blind may be said to be unable to see, in a different manner, and is, in some respects, further from being able to see, than he whose sight is hindered by a transient cloud or mist.

Brother, you missed the mark badly in your lecture.

 

[George Antonios]

George, I watched/listened to your 35 minute lecture. Here's what I note:
1) You do not understand the apologetic argument Paul is making from Romans 1 through 12 and thus you don't get Paul's point.
2) Around the 4 minute mark you say "All our righteousness is as filthy rags, but they are still righteous."

No...they are not righteous. You are wrong.

3) You say "some do right, but not perfectly." (5 minute mark)

No, they do not.

4) You don't grasp Paul's topic statement in Romans 1:17 (a quote from Habakkuk 2:4) stating that men are justified by faith alone. Paul is making a legal argument regarding justification under the law of God and no one is justified by their own works.
Romans 2 shows us that all humans will have their works judged. Those works are all unrighteous (nothing good) but God justifies the Christian...in Christ Jesus, not in the human flesh, which is sinful. Christ Jesus justifies people by his imputation of his righteousness, not because humans seek God.

5) Cornelius was justified by faith previous to Peter coming. Cornelius was an OT saint that God chose to show how Jesus made the way for all nations, tribes, and tongues.
You say Cornelius was elect, but not regenerate.
Cornelius was elect and justified by faith before meeting Peter. Peter revealed Messiah to Cornelius.

6) You try to force Paul to fit the context of the Psalms, yet Paul, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, uses the Psalms to make his legal point about being justified by faith alone, apart from works. Paul is not confined to an exegesis of the Psalms, yet you are attempting to confine Paul so you can reject Paul's argument.

7) You falsely state that a person can be "unregenerate, yet be seeking God" in complete contradiction to what Paul states.

The elect did not seek God. God sought out the elect.

8) You assert there are some righteous before they are redeemed. Yet Paul asserts there are none righteous. You deny what God tells you.

9) You take a wild left turn into the tribulation, showing your dispensational theology, but Romans 3 has nothing to do with the tribulation. That section of your lecture is of no value at all to Paul's legal argument.

10) You say "Men do seek God and men are righteous to some degree."

Paul and God say otherwise.

11) At around the 29:30 mark you say " God sees some attempt, some desire for truth ( in a man) and graciously reveals himself to that person" (because of that persons attempt)

This makes salvation merit based and not by grace alone.

12) You say "He that seeketh findeth."

Your statement is utterly false.

Read and understand Paul's full argument from Romans 1-12 as you are entirely. missing Paul's point in establishing our justification by faith, through Jesus imputed righteousness alone.

George, your insistence on a free will that is neutral reminds me of Jonathan Edwards book "The freedom of the will." In it Edwards states this:


Brother, you missed the mark badly in your lecture.

Happy with that opinion , and thanks for at least listening. All the best.

 

[Dave G]

@George Antonios :
I watched your video and was all set to offer some constructive criticism, and then thought better of it.
In fact, I was going to go point-by-point, referencing certain minute marks in the video, and decided against it.

Instead, I'll reply with a few posts to address some points, and then make an end to it:

Given dozens of Bible passages (which are just as true as Romans 3:10-18) that speak of men (often unregenerate) being righteous, doing good, understanding, seeking, and fearing God, including the passages that Paul quotes in Romans 3:10-18;

I don't see any passages that describe men as being righteous ( His standard of righteousness ) apart from God's work in a person,
and apart from them being both born again and the objects of His saving grace.
In other words, my understanding of the Scriptures sees that in order for God to consider anyone truly righteous, they must fit His standard of righteousness, not ours.

To me there is no such thing as someone who does good, seeks God, is righteous, believes His words from the heart, truly understands Him and His words, and fears ( genuinely and reverently respects ) Him and His power, outside of Him being the direct cause of it through the miracle of the new birth.
Also, being born again is a benefit of Him having saved them, so one cannot exist without the other.

Apart from that process, all men, even God's elect, are in a state of enmity against God,
hate Him and His ways, and will not come to Him that they might have life.

Yes, there was much in your video that I had to agree with...
But there was much that I had to disagree with as well.
To me, you don't fully understand that in order for anyone to do any of these things acceptably in God's sight, they must either be perfect.
His holiness is that standard.


If God says, for example, that our throats are open sepulchres, and our mouths are filled with cursing and bitterness,
It's again, from His viewpoint of perfection.
So, if anyone curses even once per day, per week, or even per month,
then to Him, that mouth is filled with it.


As I see it, you keep approaching God's word in these passages with a viewpoint of "we're not so bad",
when the fact is, to Him we are exactly as He describes us.

His perfect standard is all that counts.
" for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" ( Romans 3:23 ).

 

[Dave G]

given James' point that one can do the whole law yet become guilty of all through a single sin;

Agreed.

the only sensible conclusion is that Paul is not stating that:
unregenerate man cannot do anything good at all,
but that unregenerate man cannot do anything good perfectly at all,
and as such (given James' point) man becomes altogether guilty relative to God's standard.

Developing further from my comments above,
I see that for men to do anything that He finds acceptable, they must be doing His will as one of His people, and as one of the ones that He gave to His Son to die for.
If they are not saved and not indwelt by the Holy Spirit ( and not atoned for with the blood of His Son ), then any good that they do is as filthy rags.

It's simply a matter of "black and white", "dark and light".
No man can do anything acceptable for God if they are outside of Christ.

There is none good but God...
But there are good men, as you have so clearly pointed out.
So, why are there men that God Himself says are good?

Because God makes bad people into good people, by His standards.
He justifies them, and that is what He grades them by...


His Son's standard of righteousness, imputed to them.

 

[Dave G]

It's not that man cannot seek God, it's that man does not seek God enough.
It's really simple.

To me it's far more detailed than that...
and yet so very simple.

Simply put, man does not seek God, not in all his ways :
" The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." ( Psalms 10:4 ).

Yes, I agree that the Bible teaches that there are men who seek God.
Yes, I agree that once in a while, even unsaved, unregenerate people think of God...when they are in trouble and facing death or something else that is cataclysmic, or dire, etc.

But why are there men and women who consistently seek Him in well-doing, hope in eternal life ( which is to know Him and His Son ), cry out to Him in times of trouble, hope in His deliverance from those very troubles in this life and seek to obey Him...even though they cannot do so perfectly?

Because God works a miracle of the new birth in them, and they then begin to believe His words, seek Him, repent of their sins, and believe on Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, that's why.
It's really simple ( and no I'm not mocking you ).



As for regeneration ( the new birth ) not being present in Old Testament times, it was.
The Old Testament saints experienced the new birth that drew them to God and caused them to desire to obey Him, just as it was after Pentecost.
Even David knew it, because it was revealed to Him...see Psalms 65:4.

Men began to call upon the Lord long before He sent His Son to earth ( See Genesis 4:26 ), and they did so because they were born again.

For example, Jesus said that for anyone to see and to enter the kingdom of Heaven, they must be born again ( John 3:3-5 ).
And in In Matthew 8:11, He tells the Pharisees this:
" And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven."

My question to you is,
if you believe that Old Testament saints were not born again, how is it that Jesus says that for anyone to see and to enter into the kingdom of Heaven, they must be born again...and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be there?

Because "regeneration" existed before Pentecost, as well as after.



With the above stated, I'll make this my last reply in this thread and bid you a good evening.

 

[kyredneck]

what you think Paul is arguing in his apologetic discussion from Romans 1 through Romans 12.

It certainly wasn't justification by 'faith alone'.

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

 

[kyredneck]

) You don't grasp Paul's topic statement in Romans 1:17 (a quote from Habakkuk 2:4) stating that men are justified by faith alone.

That's a false statement. It says no such thing.

 

[AustinC]

It certainly wasn't justification by 'faith alone'.

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

We are justified (legal term) by faith alone. What is our faith (authored and perfected by Jesus) placed in? Answer: The imputed righteousness of Jesus in his atoning sacrifice on the cross.
We have died with Christ to the law of the written code and raised anew to the law of the Spirit.

This is all a part of Paul's apologetic argument regarding the gospel from Romans 1 through 12.

 

[AustinC]

That's a false statement. It says no such thing.

It absolutely does.

Romans 1:17
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Habakkuk 2:4
“Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.

This is Paul's thesis statement for his argument that runs from Romans 1 through 12.

Romans 3:20-26

For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

We are justified by faith alone. This is Paul's statement. If you disagree, take it up with God and tell God why your works justify you.

 

[kyredneck]

We are justified (legal term) by faith alone.

You’re an idiot. A parrot. You don’t even understand that you’re corrupting the message of the gospel by adding the word’ ‘
alone’ to justification by faith. You diont understand that you’re ADDING to the gospel.

 

[George Antonios]

I don't see any passages that describe men as being righteous ( His standard of righteousness ) apart from God's work in a person,
and apart from them being both born again and the objects of His saving grace.
In other words, my understanding of the Scriptures sees that in order for God to consider anyone truly righteous, they must fit His standard of righteousness, not ours.

To me there is no such thing as someone who does good, seeks God, is righteous, believes His words from the heart, truly understands Him and His words, and fears ( genuinely and reverently respects ) Him and His power, outside of Him being the direct cause of it through the miracle of the new birth.
Also, being born again is a benefit of Him having saved them, so one cannot exist without the other.

Apart from that process, all men, even God's elect, are in a state of enmity against God,
hate Him and His ways, and will not come to Him that they might have life.

Yes, we know the Calvinist position.

Yes, there was much in your video that I had to agree with...
But there was much that I had to disagree with as well.
To me, you don't fully understand that in order for anyone to do any of these things acceptably in God's sight, they must either be perfect.
His holiness is that standard.


If God says, for example, that our throats are open sepulchres, and our mouths are filled with cursing and bitterness,
It's again, from His viewpoint of perfection.
So, if anyone curses even once per day, per week, or even per month,
then to Him, that mouth is filled with it.


As I see it, you keep approaching God's word in these passages with a viewpoint of "we're not so bad",
when the fact is, to Him we are exactly as He describes us.

His perfect standard is all that counts.
" for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" ( Romans 3:23 ).

Yes, you repeated what I said in the video.

 

[George Antonios]

if you believe that Old Testament saints were not born again, how is it that Jesus says that for anyone to see and to enter into the kingdom of Heaven, they must be born again...and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be there?

Yes, because they will enter it after the resurrection, and thus with a new nature.

 

[AustinC]

You’re an idiot. A parrot. You don’t even understand that you’re corrupting the message of the gospel by adding the word’ ‘
alone’ to justification by faith. You diont understand that you’re ADDING to the gospel.

ky, your anger is against God, not me. If I parrot, I parrot the Apostle Paul who very clearly argues justification by faith alone. Humans cannot justify themselves by their own works.

Romans 8:5-8
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

[kyredneck]

I parrot the Apostle Paul who very clearly argues justification by faith alone.

No, you don't quote Paul, you pass on the error of Reformers from a bygone time. NO WHERE does Paul teach 'justification by faith alone'. He in fact refutes it:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

James concisely refutes it:

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

 

[George Antonios]

This is going off topic. @kyredneck and @AustinC please begin a thread.