Decisional Regeneration Take 2

I know what Romans 4 and 5 mean, but they also tie in with some of Paul's other writings, in Romans.

Paul used this same argument concerning himself. So, it reaches farther than just the Jews and the Law Covenant, or before the Law was given to Moses.

Paul said:

Rom 7:9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

I know the Law of Commandments were around long before Paul was even born. So, there was a time Paul considered himself "alive" without the Law, even though the Law existed. Then the Law came? Paul became of age to know to do good and knew he had not done good, so he "died" in sin.

1Jo 3:4¶Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Also, it was the same Law that was in Romans 4 and 5. The Moral Law.

 

Romans 7 has been addressed.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1083260&postcount=117

 

If you would like to take up a study on the Book of Romans, I would be glad to do this.

You know how Calvinist are with Romans.

 

Paul no doubt had done things that would of been sin if the Law had of been in force in him, but being the Law was not in force, it was not sin until the Law entered and then he realized because of the knowledge of the Law, that he was a sinner.

You might of addressed it, but I believe it was when Paul came to know God, an age of accountability and the Law entered his heart and mind, then all Paul had ever done he became accountable for and he died in sin, and stood in need of a Saviour.
Just like the rest of us.

The point I am making James, whether it is Romans 7 or 5 or 4, it is still the same Law. So, it being the "same" Law then the scripture of Romans 4 and 5 apply to us also, if the same conditions exist in us.

Paul had done things that would be sin if the Law existed in him before the Law came, but the Law was not there, so Paul was not a sinner, until the Law came.

Here you said so yourself.

 

I understand the questioning here as I chose only a small part to make a point, and that from memory. As requested, I went back to the parable to gather its context and found it necessary to put the context with the event. As such, I believe the context of the one verse begins in Chapter 19.

We can gather the context by picking up from the rich young ruler's encounter with the Lord, after which the Lord said to His disciples:

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." Matt 19:23-26

This too can serve our understanding in the salvation of God, being impossible with men, but possible with God only. Yet for our discussion it sets the context and parable we are discussing found in Chapter 20, for the chapter separation doesn't make the event end. The parable is given by our Lord after Peter says,

"Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?"

Seeing the declaration of the impossibility of men to save themselves, and answer to Peters GENERAL question on who could be saved, Peter has concern for his own soul and that of the followers of Jesus, and concern for what will be theirs, for unlike the rich young rule, the disciples had left everything.

To this Jesus adds many comforting words to them. And the Lord says in a sentence, what I believe is more fully expounded in the parable in chapter 20, namely:

30But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

The Lord says the same thing in the following parable, but adds, "For many are called, but few are chosen."

Given the context of Chapter 19, we could supoose:

1. This has reference to the rich young rule, and any like him. The rich being last and the others, poor but rich in Christ, being first who are considered last in this world.

2. That sinners will enter the kingdom of God, but Israel will not, as the Lord in another place spoke of.

3. Or of Jews and Gentiles. The Jews being first in the things pertaining to God, as to the commandments, covenants, promises, et. And the Gentiles being last, only being called and grafted in at the end of the age, but finding themselves first and the Jews last, being cut off but the gentiles grafted in.

I believe the latter is the true sense of things.

The parable gives us a householder, which I interpret of Christ, and the householders hiring of labors, which I interpret of the ministry of the Gospel. This hiring was done in the market place, as seen in verse 3 when others are hired, which I take to mean the world.

At the various hours in which laborors are hired, I take to mean the progression of the Gospel of Christ throught history, even until this day. But it also may be seen by the fact that God's redemptive purposes and plan, and having a people for Himself have been since the creation of the world. So, those hired at the very last hour, have reference to the Gentiles and others regard the prophets and Jewish nation.

The penny given to all equally, whether they worked early or later, I take to mean the blessings of salvation. Eph 1. Which are given to Jew and Gentile alike in equal measure. The last being the Gentiles having bore no burden, but hired later, that is called, recieving the same, and our Lord showing that the gift is according to what seems good to HIm, a gift by His grace.

And so we come to verse 16, "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."

This statement clearly ties the parable to Matt 19:30 which places the context, and hence the meaning, in "Who then can be saved?"

And more light is given to the first part spoken in Matt 19:30 "for many be called, but few chosen."

Given that our subject often deals with the C/A topic, and the Calvinists are apt to speak of an effectual calling, being "irresistable" the calling spoken of here cannot mean such an inward call, because it is here contrasted with being chosen, or elect, wherein other places the elected are designated the called of God.

Here this must be the invited, which is universal, in that the Gospel is to be preached to all nations and every creature. There are many who will hear the Gospel, sit in churches, observe the ordinances and pleas for repentence and faith in Jesus Christ, but whom God has never "chosen to salvation..." 2 Thess 2:13


Given the statement of our Lord, that few are chosen, corresponding to the parable of laborers hired, these are the ones the householder went to and hired, the others being left in the marketplace.

 

And I'm glad I can be counted on. :jesus:

Ezek 18:20 says "The soul that sinneth, it shall surely die." But it must sin before it dies.

Is it sin if one has an unknown sin? Not to the soul but to the spirit and body. Remember, sin was in the world but for heavenly purposes not accounted for sin. However, man is accounted for consequences of sin in this world even though it is "unknown" like David's in Psa 19:11.

I believe that God doesn't bring guilt and soul death without conviction first. Conviction is knowing you sinned and is insight given us by the Holy Spirit. I believe that children can be convicted of sin beforehand -- knowing in advance that they WILL be sinners -- and led to Christ in anticipation of that as well.

skypair

 

Well you are certainly getting some folks theology wrong. We don't "learn" to sin. I've said time and again that it is survival instinct that devolves into sin.

And I was looking the other night -- there is NO mention of "sin nature" in scripture. Likely this is a term and Calvies also invented and then defined as "sin guilt from birth.

Again --- explain Cornelius. He prayed to God and gave alms and God heard his prayers though he was unsaved.

skypair

 

True -- so he could experience earthly consequences of his sin without suffering eternal consequences, right? IOW, God wouldn't have held him accountable but the synagogue would have.

skypair

 

You did pretty well on the Mt 19 parable. I think you "fumbled" on the "punchline." first last - last first speaks of the Gentiles/church coming to work last but being paid first (post-rapture). There were no laborers left in the market place in scripture, though. Your addition of them "scotches" you interpretation. And to be honest, I see 5 groups hired as representing "hirees" under Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Christ.

"Many called, few chosen" is like unto it. OT Israel was "called" to the wedding feast for the Son but the "few chosen" are the bride of the Son, the church! Ergo, this is not an issue of "particular calling."

skypair

 

Perhaps I missed it, but when did you apologize for your railing against me?

 

Uh? I rather like these one sided conversations.

And surely you don't want me to apologize for the truth, do you? If you were a smoker and I told you you would die if you keep smoking, would you take offense? Probably. Should I apologize for warning you? I think not. If I offered to help you quit, is my offense greater or, me having experience with it, would you accept my help a bit more humbly?

Likewise, if you were building with "wood, hay, and stubble" would it be wrong for me to say so? Isn't the larger lesson that of what "wood, hay, and stubble" is (thoughts, wisdom, and glory of men) not more helpful to you than any silly offense you take at having been to object of the lesson? Yet without discussing these potential truths, neither of us is edified, are we.

So when you "reformed" or "protested" against Catholicism, was it for evil or for good?

skypair

 

I am not talking about any truth you may have spoken to me. I am talking about the personal attacks you have made.

 

I agree with most everything herein. But at the same time I must point a portion neglected in parable of the Laborers that is the same in the Marriage Supper.
It was an invitation. Where a choice is made.

It can not be assumed that all the laborers who he saw at the different hours went to His vineyard, because the scripture says they went their way.
But as His third time going out is displayed He makes an unusual statement to men who 'assumedly' had not been there before.
He states:

All day?? If some of these were not there before, why would He comments as though he had seen there there 'all day'. Becasue as stated previously 'they went their way' or the way they chose to go - whether to work or hide till he left so they could again just hang around. But the fact remains it was a choice He is speaking of here as well as in the Parable of the Marriage Feast, else why urge them on to go work, if he was simply going to compel them to do His will. And thus the chosen are spoken of as being those who 'chose'.
Is that not the natural terminology of Election. To have a pre-set conditions that the applicant TO BE must agree to (or abide by), thereby designating them as elected or elect- Chosen.

Yes, but you must 'bring' to the text that presupposition do you not. For that is not seen in the natural reading of the text via its context.

I am not necessarily discounting it, but the context is speaking of something not in line with irresistable since it is a choice they are making, correct?
Irresistable becomes a sub-point in relation to context, but then must explain the one who tried to come into the feast without the Wedding Garments, and the Laborers who did not go at the request of the householder.

True, we see this differently
I have no problem with the fact that God chose me from the beginning to salvation. However, this chosing was based upon something and is why scripture states "THROUGH or BY" - His choosing us TO salvation THROUGH or BY "sanctification' or seperating us which is only done with the Word of God as the Sprit of God reveals its Truths. The other is by belief in the truth and this is expounded by Paul in the verses preceding this one which state those who were damned were judged so BECAUSE they did not believe the truth that COULD save them and it was FOR THIS REASON God damned them. They like we are all under condemnation but until we reject the truth are we truly condemned. Those condemned are not so because that is what God determined of them because it pleased Him for them to die seperated fro Him because scripture states He takes not pleasure in that. However, in John 3;18 concerning those who believe not being condemned already IS NOT refering God's predetermined choice for them but the fact that they will not chose to believe condemns them (seals their fate) before they ever stand before the Judgment of the Great White Throne, just as the same verse states those who believe on Him are not condemned. (Rom 8:1 NOW THEREFORE there is No condemnation - not that we were never under condemnation for we are all born children of wrath). Verse 13 must be taken in context of the whole passage which deals with belief of the Truth and rejection of Truth that it remain and be taken in context. ANd as you read 14 and 15 you seek the seperating or sanctifying is done through the revealation of the Word (which is done only by the Spirit of God).

True, but they agree with Him as to whether what was offered was what they needed, and those who stayed also chose to stay after He called and reasoned with them to.

 

Alan,

Good points.

It's an interesting thought that the 11th hour laborers said that "no man did hire us" shows us that these were the Gentiles whom the Jews never reached out to "hire" for God! How fitting then that when they are called in first and paid, we see the pretrib rapture and the other laborers complaining -- jealous -- of them.

skypair

 

This seemed of all things most important to reply to. You are abosolutely correct that God's election was not indiscriminate. It has a "why" and a source of the "why" and it has nothing to do with us. The grace of election has everything to do with Him who wills, according to His good pleasure, because it seems good to Him to do it, and to bring Himself glory from those He has chosen to salvation. This is the why of why anyone was chosen and Scripture sets forth Jacob and Esau as our example, the one being chosen to be heir before birth, before any good or evil was done. And all one has to do is look at Jacob's life and see what a liar and deciever he was to know for certain that there was nothing in Jacob for God to choose him. And we should consider that it was God's oath confirmed to Jacob, the Covenant promised to Abraham, that is in view--that all the families should be blessed through his seed: not of seeds as of many, but "seed" being Christ.

I think there may be a misconception that Calvinists teach that men are condemned and damned because God predetermined it. This is a false idea. Men are condemned and damned on account of their own sins and because they will not (if given the Gospel call) repent and believe. It is not even necessary that they ever hear of Christ to be damned for God is just in condemning them for breaking the Law of their conscience. Again, it is not necessary that they have the truth that could save them for them to be jusly condemned, but only that they be sinners. Nor is God under any obligation to give everyone the Gospel! Who says He must? If He does not hire one laborer, but hires another, do we judge God with evil because He didn't give everyone an equal opportunity? Is God a democracy? Is God a communist? God forbid.

I see in your post Allen a cry for fairness based on a sense of fairness that may be too human. What man among us would dare say to God, "I want is fair God. Give me what is justly due to me." I tremble at the thought. If I were to recieve such a request I imagine temporal judgment would immediately fall on me and I would drop dead and thus plunge headlong into hell. There the full wrath of Almighty God would be poured out me for my gross and many sins.

I thank God He was not fair to me.


It is not that I am saying unbelief is not a sin. It is. But it is not necessary for a person to have had received the truth and turned away from it to be condemned.

 

And if it be His good pleasure to will and decree that at His moving, revealing, and convicting by His grace that man is brought to a place of decisional responsiblility, will you really question God and His Pleasure? Willl you tell God to stop being so unGod-like and stand up and be a real God? I doubt it (I can't even pretend to imagine that coming from your lips), yet you seem to say such here. That God must be this particular way or else He can not be God, or is it more aptly put that He does not measure up to some view of God.

Would you mind if I debate this view with you
First, you have the wrong assumption that it was the person Jacob and the person Esau in view.
I can prove scripturally this is not speaking of Jacob the man and Esau the man but the people which came FROM THEM and identified those people in the personification of Jacob and Esau.
It must also be noted however, that Romans 9 is NOT about election unto salvation but unto Gods Purposes.
Second, chapter 9 (which comes into play regarding the first) is about Israels history:

 

Another Part 2 :laugh:

Is that not the general though apparent logical conclusion if God choses people to salvation BEFORE they have done EITHER GOOD or EVIL, imply that God also choses people to condemnation BEFORE they have done EITHER GOOD or EVIL.
I know there are varying Calvinistic views as to when the Decree of Salvation became His will. I am just answering in line with your previous comment of about Jacob and Esau , keeping in line with that thought process.

YOu are correct that they don't even NEED to hear the Gospel to be condemned. But they are condemned for rejecting the truth revealed even in Nature which also speaks of God, the Godhead, His glory, Power, they they even know Him. If they will accept even the truths spoken forth from Nature and mans conscience, will God deny them the fullness of the Truths Of God. Will God not send one to them, to speak of Him who they have never heard, about that which they have never known. (The Ethiopian and Philip come to mind Acts8:21 and many Missionary stories)

True, but who is to say for God that He wont either?

Yet it is the scriptures which state that He doesn't hire discrinately but in fact offers His hiring to all who will come, not man - but God Himself.

Ok, now my brother you are going beyond our speach and any meaning I have set forth to something that quoted by Calvinists to Non-Calvinists.
Please show where I ever insinuated God must be fair. I gave scripture which shows God HAS set forth the death of His some for all but applied only to those in Faith. God has determinded this, not Allan out of some diatride against God and how I 'feel He should be' or how "I think He should act", but based upon His word regarding what He has done. I praise God through Christ that grace was given and we NOT get what we deserve, and yet I will not dicate to God what He can not do nor what He can. That which I find in scripture (regardless of my sensibilities or theology) that and that alone will I believe.

This is not what I see scripture saying however.

This is both general (natural and conscience) and gospel because they BOTH declare God, sin, Truth, and Judgment.
As well as some others:
Rom 1:18-32 ; Rom 2 ; 2 Thes 2 ; Prov 1:20-33 ; Hos 4:6 ; Psa 33:13-22 ; Ezk 33:1-20

 

Allan,

I'm having difficulty discussing with RB cause one day he will seem to see our side and the next he comes back full or "Calvin juice." :laugh:

Example: He chooses of His own pleasure, it's not indisciminate, but He won't choose according to His promise to choose only believers.

The Jacob-Essau statements are so far removed from their lives that there is absolutely no way they could be referring to the individuals in Malachi which Paul quotes!

I think RB is just going through his memory drills! :laugh:

skypair

 

Allan,

If I may interject......

You and I have posted views for a while. I must say that maybe it is not your intent, but when it comes to the subject of election, you seem to always look for a fairness aspect in God. Do you not ask over and over, by what means does God choose? You claim ..."it must be based on something". Again, maybe this is not your intent, but to me you seek to find fairness.

In Christ...James