Defining "the law" as used in New Testament

[BobRyan]

3. I have already shown the "God as first cause" texts in the Bible where the "Goodness of God leads you to repentance" but does not delete your free will nor cause you to repent and then later you choose to repent.

3. I have thorough shown your interpretation of Romans 2:4 is pure eisgesis. Please look on my thread "Romans 2:1-16" and you will find a complete exposition of Romans 2:1-5 that thoroughly proves your interpretation is absolutely impossible IF Biblical language and context and grammar mean anything and IF honesty and objectivity are the driving force behind your investigation.

I had not seen that yet. I just responded to it - and apparently there was a miscommunication. My reference to the people of God in Rom 2:1-3 had to do with the fact that the "reader" is someone at the church of Rome. I did not mean to imply that this is the saved condition.

In fact I would argue that the approved saints in Romans 1 (a group that Paul also includes himself in) - are not practicing the bold rebellion listed in Rom 2:1-3.

And it does not change the fact that God's call to repentance - in the case of the lost (and the Rom 2:1-3 guys are certainly lost) is the heart of the Gospel as we see it in Acts 17:30 and 2Peter 3:9 and John 16:8.

Thus - God as the first cause for obedience starts with God drawing all men and convicting the world of sin - calling all men everywhere to repentance.

At no point does Phil 2 even say that God chose repentance for them.

4. All I said was God is the one who worked in them to "will" and to "do" of His good pleasure. Is repentance and faith in Christ "his good pleasure"? However, listen to the Church at Jerusalem about where repentance unto life comes from:

When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. - Acts 11:18

The arminian model is that the supernatural drawing of ALL "enables that which depravity disables" and even a number of Calvinists have had to agree to that point.

But the drawing of God does not "insert repentance" it grants the option to the sinner so that the one granted the gift may choose to use it.


Paul says "it is no longer I who live - but Christ that lives in me" - Gal 2:20 - and also says "I buffet my body and make it my slave LEST after preaching the Gospel to others I myself should be disqualified" 1Cor 9.

The Calvinist trick of trying to make God the robot-controller of Paul fails here because it would mean that Paul is buffeting his body for fear that God might forget to cause him not to be disqualified.

5. You are so intent on fighting "Calvinism" that you cannot even see straight when it comes to the Scriptures. I really don't see your point in using Galatians 2:20? I Corinthians 9 has to do with his calling as an apostle and minister of the gospel not his own personal salvation.

You have missed the context in 1Cor 9 - and are simply eisegeting your preference into the chapter. Paul seeks not to be disqualified from the Gospel and thus not be eliminated as a "fellow partaker of it"

23I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the Gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified

Paul repeatedly makes the argument that he is preaching the Gospel and then concludes with the remark about not wanting to be disqualified from the very Gospel he is preaching.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You had not a single text in that list saying "God made them willing" yet you tossed them around as if you did.

You don't even understand the words "God made them willing" and this idea is expressed throughout the scriptures:

Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, - Psa. 110:3a

"For it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL..." - Philip. 2:13

Phil 2:14 "do all things without grumbling or disputing" -- is Paul instructing God as to what to "will" and "do" in the saints? Or is this a command to the church to CHOOSE to follow God's leaing?

Your problems are generally in the same texts you suppose are making your case.

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

I have repeatedly shown the first-cause work of God in leading the lost to be saved - and also in Romans 8 of enabling the saved to persevere - but this does not negate the warning, the problem, the risk of not choosing to persevere and thus being severed from Christ - fallen from Grace.

23I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The passage in Revelation that you repeatedly use for sinners choosing to come to Christ is not addressed to lost sinners but to the church that as a church is grown cold.

There is no such thing as "saved without Christ".

The one that is alone - and has Christ only on the outside - knocking - is not "in Christ" is not "no longer I who live but Christ that lives in me".

The calvinist position needs to come up with a new kind of "without Christ" salvation to make that work.

It is pointless to continue arguing with you in regard to the convicting work of the Holy Spirit as you clearly do not see nor accept the Biblical distinction between the general and effectual calling of the Holy Spirit

It is characteristic of calvinism to blame God for cases where man chooses to fail. God is not effective in the Calvinist model if man chooses to either resist the call to repentance or to fail to persevere as a saved saint.

The flaw is more apparent than some have imagined.

The general call is accompanied by the natural convicting power of the Word of God which never ends in true conversion (2 Cor. 7:10) but only in worldly sorrow which the natural man always resists effectually (Acts 7:51).

It is the goodness of God that leads you to repentance - therefore God calls for all men everywhere to repent.

The "natural convicting power" of the supernatural Word of God "alive and active and sharper than a two-edged sword" is a conflicted position to say the least.

Nor will we get anywhere by pointing out that John 1:12 refers to adoption as the word for "power" is exousia "authority" when John 1:13 is given as the cause for man's response in verse 12.

You missed the point entirely. Christ is the light that coming into the world enlightens every man, he came even to his own,

But the choice of some is such that "his own received him not"

And the choice of others is "but to as many as received Him to them He gave the right to be called the sons of God".

At no point does the text make this a "God arbitrarily selected the few to receive Him" chatper in favor of Calvinism's arbitrary selection doctrine.

Nor will we get anywhere by pointing out that there is a distinction between spiritual life versus judicial/legal eternal life.

Which seems to be the excuse our Calvinist friends use for ignoring the inconvient details of Romans 2.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

I saw your response on the other thread and responded too harshly to you and wrote another response in apology and struck out anew to answer your interpretation.

I understand how you could interpret "so that I may become a fellow partaker of it" in the sense of personal salvation in regard to entrance into heaven. However, I understand it as partaking of the gospel in the sense of rewards for faithfulness in the ministering the gospel or his vocational calling instead of salvation calling. He does not want to be disqualified or "set on a shelf" for lack of faithfulness in carrying out his gospel vocation as first described in verses 16-22.

I had not seen that yet. I just responded to it - and apparently there was a miscommunication. My reference to the people of God in Rom 2:1-3 had to do with the fact that the "reader" is someone at the church of Rome. I did not mean to imply that this is the saved condition.

In fact I would argue that the approved saints in Romans 1 (a group that Paul also includes himself in) - are not practicing the bold rebellion listed in Rom 2:1-3.

And it does not change the fact that God's call to repentance - in the case of the lost (and the Rom 2:1-3 guys are certainly lost) is the heart of the Gospel as we see it in Acts 17:30 and 2Peter 3:9 and John 16:8.

Thus - God as the first cause for obedience starts with God drawing all men and convicting the world of sin - calling all men everywhere to repentance.



The arminian model is that the supernatural drawing of ALL "enables that which depravity disables" and even a number of Calvinists have had to agree to that point.

But the drawing of God does not "insert repentance" it grants the option to the sinner so that the one granted the gift may choose to use it.


Paul says "it is no longer I who live - but Christ that lives in me" - Gal 2:20 - and also says "I buffet my body and make it my slave LEST after preaching the Gospel to others I myself should be disqualified" 1Cor 9.

The Calvinist trick of trying to make God the robot-controller of Paul fails here because it would mean that Paul is buffeting his body for fear that God might forget to cause him not to be disqualified.



You have missed the context in 1Cor 9 - and are simply eisegeting your preference into the chapter. Paul seeks not to be disqualified from the Gospel and thus not be eliminated as a "fellow partaker of it"

23I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the Gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified

Paul repeatedly makes the argument that he is preaching the Gospel and then concludes with the remark about not wanting to be disqualified from the very Gospel he is preaching.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I saw your response on the other thread and responded too harshly to you and wrote another response in apology and struck out anew to answer your interpretation.

That was kind of you to do so sir. Apology accepted - though I did not take offense at your remarks in any case. I have been in the habbit of engaging in these discussions for so long that I simply skim past the part where people are expressing momentary frustration - and look for some area in their post where they get to the details of the text itself.

I have returned to that thread to respond to the points raised there.

I understand how you could interpret "so that I may become a fellow partaker of it" in the sense of personal salvation in regard to entrance into heaven.

In 1Cor 9 Paul explicitly states what he views is the benefit of the Gospel.

1Cor 9

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.
...
23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.

However, I understand it as partaking of the gospel in the sense of rewards for faithfulness in the ministering the gospel or his vocational calling instead of salvation calling.

Paul is explicit in 1Cor 9 - that the benefit of the Gospel is salvation.

I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.

In the striving for salvation that Paul says all are engaged in - Paul argues that it is an "imperishable" prize as compared to an earthly prize. (By comparison he does not argue that all of his listeners are Apostles)

Paul explicitly states in 1Cor 9 that the "only reward" he seeks is the "reward of not charging others" when he preaches the gospel.


16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.
17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.
18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.



At no point in 1Cor 9 does Paul bring up the case of those who are saved - and yet no longer called to preach the Gospel - nor does he argue that he himself is concerned about that state.

"I buffet my body and make it my slave lest I no longer be called to preach the gospel" is not anywhere in the chapter.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

The calvinist position needs to come up with a new kind of "without Christ" salvation to make that work.

It is characteristic of calvinism to blame God for cases where man chooses to fail.

Bob

Bob, it seems characteristic of you (and another poster) to label those who expound the Scriptures as Calvinists. Instead of the "name-calling" or you deciding who belongs where, why not just answer or debate the Scriptural points being brought up: point by point; Scripture vs. Scripture, etc.

It does no good to try and dismiss a Biblical position by simply saying "that is Calvinism." We can see straight through that.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Bob, we are not going to agree because we see the preceding context completely different.

From verse 1 the rights of the apostolic office and ministry are defended to verse 15.

In verses 16-17 he emphasizes the necessity of carrying out his calling to preach the gospel. In verse 17 he states there is "a reward" if he finishes his ministry willingly. However, that "reward" is inclusive of both temporal and eternal (vv 18-23).

The temporal reward is to make the gospel free so that he cannot be charged with abusing his authority (v. 18) and thus the free course of the gospel through him be hindered. He does this for the sake of all men that he might be "free" to become all things to all men that some might be saved (vv. 19-22). He also does this for the gospel's sake (v.23). Notice he did not say that he did it for "his sake" which is the necessary inference of your interpretation. He does it for the "sake of the gospel." What he means is that he does it for the sake of removing anything that would prevent the gospel from being used by God through his ministry. This concept is then followed by the words "that I might be partaker thereof with you."

Now, he has not been talking about taking the gospel to "you" in the previous verses. This "you" are already saved persons who also are being faithful in their own calling as saved persons. They too should adopt this same attitude in their vocational calling that God can work through them for the sake of removing anything that would prevent the gospel being used through them as well. In so doing, together they will be partakers of the the reward for faithful service in their vocational calling.

What is required to serve faithfully in their vocational calling for the sake of removing anything that would prevent the gospel being used through them also?

24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

Faithful continuance in the vocational calling is like a race where in they run for the ultimate prize. However, this is not an earthly reward but eternal reward in heaven. In regard to himself, this is how he views his quest for fulfilling the vocation that God has called him unto:

26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

There is no question or doubt about what his vocation is and what is required of him to be faithful in completing the ministry he has been equipped and called by God to perform "for the sake of the gospel."

27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Faithfulness to his calling requires discipline of his own desires and even his rights as described in verses 1-15. They are his rights but he chooses to give up his rights if they hinder the goal of his calling - which is not salvation - but faithfulness in removing anything that would prevent the free course of the gospel through his ministry. His greatest fear is that after he has preached to others these same principles listed above, that he would allow himself, his rights and privileges, much less, sins get in the way and prevent the free course of the gospel through his ministry and thus be "set on a shelf" by men who charge him with covetousness in preaching and thus stain his ministry and/or"set on a shelf" by God who can no longer have free course of the gospel through him because he has allowed his "rights" and "privileges" to become more important than the "sake of the gospel."

That was kind of you to do so sir. Apology accepted - though I did not take offense at your remarks in any case. I have been in the habbit of engaging in these discussions for so long that I simply skim past the part where people are expressing momentary frustration - and look for some area in their post where they get to the details of the text itself.

I have returned to that thread to respond to the points raised there.



In 1Cor 9 Paul explicitly states what he views is the benefit of the Gospel.





Paul is explicit in 1Cor 9 - that the benefit of the Gospel is salvation.

I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.

In the striving for salvation that Paul says all are engaged in - Paul argues that it is an "imperishable" prize as compared to an earthly prize. (By comparison he does not argue that all of his listeners are Apostles)

Paul explicitly states in 1Cor 9 that the "only reward" he seeks is the "reward of not charging others" when he preaches the gospel.


16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.
17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.
18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.



At no point in 1Cor 9 does Paul bring up the case of those who are saved - and yet no longer called to preach the Gospel - nor does he argue that he himself is concerned about that state.

"I buffet my body and make it my slave lest I no longer be called to preach the gospel" is not anywhere in the chapter.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From verse 1 the rights of the apostolic office and ministry are defended to verse 15.

agreed.

In vs 11-18 is Paul's argument not only for paying evangelists and pastors but also for his own special desire that he not be paid as his temporal "reward".

18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

to that point I don't see our differences being very much more than what you might want to focus or not focus on. No difference of substance as yourself admit in vs 18

The temporal reward is to make the gospel free so that he cannot be charged with abusing his authority (v. 18) and thus the free course of the gospel through him be hindered. He does this for the sake of all men

Vs 19-22 Paul speaks to his effort to reach both Jews and Gentiles in the best way possible so as to reach them with the gospel - in fact to "Win them" to the Gospel and thus "by all means save some" (which is what Paul sees as the real focuse for the benefit of the Gospel".

21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.


He concludes that point of salvation by saying

23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.


He does not say "I do all things for the Gospel that I may be an apostle along with my fellow apostles".

He does not say "I do all things for the gospel that I may be an evangelist along with my fellow evangelists".

After carefully laying a context of those he is reaching and winning to the Gospel and thus saving he says I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it. he shows that he is a fellow partaker along with those he is evangelizing (the context he has just explicitly set in the text).

This is an inconvenient detail that the objective unbiased reader is not likely to gloss over.

He also does this for the gospel's sake (v.23). Notice he did not say that he did it for "his sake" which is the necessary inference of your interpretation.

There is not much inference needed to see that his statement "that I may be a fellow partaker of it" is a direct explicit reference to his interest - his sake, his benefit.

Again leaving that point as an exercise for the reader is not much of an assignment for them. I am sure you would agree.

He does it for the "sake of the gospel." What he means is that he does it for the sake of removing anything that would prevent the gospel from being used by God through his ministry. This concept is then followed by the words "that I might be partaker thereof with you."

We do agree that his being all things to all people is an effort to advance the gospel and to "by all means save some".

But in vs 23 he adds the benefit that he gains from this as well. To partake of the gospel along with those he is winning to the gospel.

Now, he has not been talking about taking the gospel to "you" in the previous verses.

vs 11 "If we sowed spiritual things IN YOU is it teoo much if we should reap material things FROM YOU... the Lord directed those who proclaim THE GOSPEL to get their living from the GOSPEL".

"I gave YOU milk to drink, not solid food... I planted, Apollos watered.. we are God's fellow workers YOU are God's field, God's building... I laid a foundation and another is building on it" 1Cor 3:2, 6, 9, 10.

"
15 For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel. 1Cor 4:15

23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

This "you" are already saved persons who also are being faithful in their own calling as saved persons.

Persons who became saved through the same Gospel preaching of Paul that Paul claims he is still doing among the gentiles and the jews.

They too should adopt this same attitude in their vocational calling that God can work through them for the sake of removing anything that would prevent the gospel being used through them as well. In so doing, together they will be partakers of the the reward for faithful service in their vocational calling.

There is no "Join me in being an apostle" there is no "be a fellow partaker in my calling as an evangelist" nor even "join me in offering the gospel without getting paid" in that text.

The focus is on Paul being a fellow partaker of the same Gospel that he preached to them that resulted in the salvation not only of the christians at Corinth but of all the Jews and Gentiles Paul has reached to that point.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

15 For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel. 1Cor 4:15


1Cor 9
23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the Gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified

What is required to serve faithfully in their vocational calling for the sake of removing anything that would prevent the gospel being used through them also?

Faithful continuance in the vocational calling is like a race where in they run for the ultimate prize.

At no point in 1Cor 9 does Paul argue "we are all evangelists we all have the right to be paid through the Gospel -- but I choose as my reward not to get paid" so as to bend this chapter over to the idea that Paul and his readers in Corinth are all engaged in a vocational calling where they all need instruction to join with Paul as an Apostle and an Evangelist who - though they have the right to be paid - might like Paul choose not to be.

I think we can agree that such is not even remotely the subject of anything in this entire chapter.

And the eternal reward Paul mentions in 1Cor 9 - is found both in 22, 23, vs

22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.


1Cor 9
23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

There is no question or doubt about what his vocation is and what is required of him

That much is true.

However at no point does Paul argue that his vocation is also the vocation of the readers in Corinth. Thus the point at which they are fellow partakers is NOT that they are in the same vocation - but that they are fellow partakers in the Gospel itself.

It is on this point alone that Paul now includes both himself and his readers.


23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the Gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified


you may simply dismiss this as a case where we "differ" but I would ask you to think about it for a second.

If your view is right - then you are benefitted by describing it in the detail to which this discussion lends itself. If you are wrong - then I am benefitted by having you describe your view in this level of detail as well - because it provides the opportunity to contrast (for ourselves and for the reader) at the level of inconvenient detail - the areas where your view leaves the text.

Arguably then we are both motivated to explore the point to this level of detail. It is a win-win.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

In both of your posts you misrepresent my interpretation of the critical verse. I never said that Paul is calling on them to join him as an apostle or in his own specific vocational ministry of the gospel but that is exactly the way you represent my argument.

I said, that previous to verse 23 he had been speaking about being used to convey the gospel to the lost in such a way that the gospel will nto be hindered through him. In verse 23 he turns from the lost to the saved "you." Together regardless of their own individual vocational calling, the goal is "for the sake of the gospel." His desire is that he continues together with them toward that goal, so that nothing in himself or in them would hinder that goal regardless of their own individual vocation, as the goal is the same for each one. As brethren TOGETHER with the same aim "for the gospel's sake" he wants to continue to participate with them in being used by God "for the sake of the gospel" or being used so that the gospel is not hindered through him or them. He wants to be a joint participant with them "for the sake of the gospel" which requires that not only himself, but they as well, do not allow anything to hinder the gospel through their own vocational calling.

He then proceeds to describe how they all can do this and that requires bringing their own desires (rights, priviledges) into subjection to accomplish that goal. In accomplishing that goal there is future reward as well as the temporal reward of being used by God to see people saved. However, if you put your own rights (vv. 1-10) above this goal then you hinder the gospel and will be set aside by the very "rights" and "privileges" you prioritize.

15 For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel. 1Cor 4:15


1Cor 9
23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the Gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified



At no point in 1Cor 9 does Paul argue "we are all evangelists we all have the right to be paid through the Gospel -- but I choose as my reward not to get paid" so as to bend this chapter over to the idea that Paul and his readers in Corinth are all engaged in a vocational calling where they all need instruction to join with Paul as an Apostle and an Evangelist who - though they have the right to be paid - might like Paul choose not to be.

I think we can agree that such is not even remotely the subject of anything in this entire chapter.

And the eternal reward Paul mentions in 1Cor 9 - is found both in 22, 23, vs

22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.


1Cor 9
23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.



That much is true.

However at no point does Paul argue that his vocation is also the vocation of the readers in Corinth. Thus the point at which they are fellow partakers is NOT that they are in the same vocation - but that they are fellow partakers in the Gospel itself.

It is on this point alone that Paul now includes both himself and his readers.


23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the Gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified


you may simply dismiss this as a case where we "differ" but I would ask you to think about it for a second.

If your view is right - then you are benefitted by describing it in the detail to which this discussion lends itself. If you are wrong - then I am benefitted by having you describe your view in this level of detail as well - because it provides the opportunity to contrast (for ourselves and for the reader) at the level of inconvenient detail - the areas where your view leaves the text.

Arguably then we are both motivated to explore the point to this level of detail. It is a win-win.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dr. Walter: CONCLUSION: The Ten commandments is the basis for Jewish law and justification by faith in Christ is contrasted to justification in the sight of God by keeping the ten commandments inclusive of all its applications (civil, ceremonial).

HP: WHAT?? Your conclusion suggests that Jewish law did not have its foundation in laws written on the heart prior to the ten commandments.

The law is indeed never spoken of as the ‘grounds’ of justification, but justification will never be accomplished ‘apart from’ a willingness to abide by the moral law of God as known to the individual at the time of salvation. To consider otherwise is nothing short of pure antinomianism resulting in deterministic fatalism.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Ten commandments is the basis for moral law of right and wrong. It is written in the conscience of men or that which lighteth every man coming into the world. However, under the Mosaic economy it was expanded and applied to every aspect of the religious and civil life of the Jew. The ceremonial laws and the civil laws have their basis in moral law or the ten commandments. The truths behind the forms and applications of ceremonial law are based in moral law.

In the Old Testament the negative form "thou shalt NOT" was designed for the unregenerated man to restrain his fallen nature. However, from the beginning in Eden, the law written upon the heart of the regenerate is positive law or "love" which excells the negative form written on tablets of stone.

The writing of this principle upon the hearts in regeneration does not justifiy man before God as that is that based solely upon the finished substitutionary work of Jesus Christ in behalf of the justified one. The writing of this principle upon the hearts in regeneration is for the purpose of progressive sanctification, which is never completed or perfected in this life but only completed in glorification.

HP: WHAT?? Your conclusion suggests that Jewish law did not have its foundation in laws written on the heart prior to the ten commandments.

The law is indeed never spoken of as the ‘grounds’ of justification, but justification will never be accomplished ‘apart from’ a willingness to abide by the moral law of God as known to the individual at the time of salvation. To consider otherwise is nothing short of pure antinomianism resulting in deterministic fatalism.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dr. Walter: The Ten commandments is the basis for moral law of right and wrong. It is written in the conscience of men or that which lighteth every man coming into the world.

HP: First, the ten commandments came subsequent to the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment to the world. As for the ten commadments being written in the conscience of men, not true. Even Paul, a very well taught and learned individual, states clearly Ro 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

[Personal attack removed]

 

[Dr. Walter]

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; - Rom. 1:19

Rom. 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

HP: First, the ten commandments came subsequent to the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment to the world. As for the ten commadments being written in the conscience of men, not true. Even Paul, a very well taught and learned individual, states clearly Ro 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Why cannot it be said that according to Scripture you are teaching that which is contrary to the Word of God? You may well be living proof that false doctrine is not necessarily a sign of a lost false prophet.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dr. Walter: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; - Rom. 1:19

HP: I cannot see how this makes your point at all. Do the words ‘which may be known’ suggest that everything is indeed known intuitively? I would not think so, and neither did Paul.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Look, I want to be nice to you, but really, I responded by giving you two texts and both describe what God has done "IN" the same persons. In Romans 1:18-32 he is dealing with gentiles and in Romans 2:14-15 he is dealing with gentiles and in the first statement Paul declares that God has revealed himself to them "IN" them and in the second statement he has written something "IN" them which is called "the law."

Can't get more simple than this. Same writer, same subjects (gentiles) same sphere "in" them and the second passage defines what God put "in" them and it is "the law" written on their hearts/conscience.

If you want to discuss seriously then lets do it but if you are going to play these kind of silly games let's not waste time.

HP: I cannot see how this makes your point at all. Do the words ‘which may be known’ suggest that everything is indeed known intuitively? I would not think so, and neither did Paul.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dr. Walter: If you want to discuss seriously then lets do it but if you are going to play these kind of silly games let's not waste time.

HP: I interpret you as saying, if Dr. Walter says something, it matters not how close to the truth it in reality is, it is to simply be accepted as the gospel.

Sorry Dr. I do not play ‘silly games.’ Theology is serious business. Your remarks need to be tested and questioned just as do the remarks of all of us. You have made some remarks simply not in accordance to truth or the Scriptures and should be challenged. :thumbs:

There is no Scripture anywhere that suggests that all of the moral law is or has been intuitively known, and clear passages that refute your remark suggesting that it has been or is. Certainly there has been and is enough truth intuitively known to convict all of sin, but that is a far cry from your statements.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Why don't you respond to the language of Paul in those texts instead of spouting unsubstantiated hot air??? I gave you scriptures that specifically state God has put something in man whereby he can know God exists and what he put in was "the law" written on their hearts. You can bloviate all you care but doesn't change the Word of God one iota.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

What is "the law" first mentioned above? It is the law of God. What do the gentiles do by NATURE? They do the things contained in "THE LAW" the same law. How do they do it? BY NATURE. How is that? God writes it upon their hearts.

My friend, it is like "see dick run"? It is that simple and that clear. If you can't see it try opening your eyes, I understand that trick sometimes helps (grin).

HP: I interpret you as saying, if Dr. Walter says something, it matters not how close to the truth it in reality is, it is to simply be accepted as the gospel.

Sorry Dr. I do not play ‘silly games.’ Theology is serious business. Your remarks need to be tested and questioned just as do the remarks of all of us. You have made some remarks simply not in accordance to truth or the Scriptures and should be challenged. :thumbs:

There is no Scripture anywhere that suggests that all of the moral law is or has been intuitively known, and clear passages that refute your remark suggesting that it has been or is. Certainly there has been and is enough truth intuitively known to convict all of sin, but that is a far cry from your statements.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Why don't you respond to the language of Paul in those texts instead of spouting unsubstantiated hot air??? I gave you scriptures that specifically state God has put something in man whereby he can know God exists and what he put in was "the law" written on their hearts. You can bloviate all you care but doesn't change the Word of God one iota.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

HP: Contrary to your belief, I can read and comprehend Scripture. I fully understand that the heathen indeed possess a measurement of enlightenment, at least enough to condemn them when they sin in some manner, yet that in no wise makes the case you appear to be presenting that the law in its entirety is known and understood by mere heathen. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you and a few others, Paul was no heathen and yet even he had no just comprehension of the law regarding covetousness apart from reading the law “thou shalt not covet.”

Furthermore, if the entire moral law was already written on the heart of every man, why would God state the following? “Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:”

I would maintain only one in fellowship with God has a complete understanding of Gods moral law, and even still in a finite not infinite manner.

“See Dick run?”:wavey:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Because the law written on the conscience only condemns or approves of your actions but does not CHANGE YOUR HEART to desire to do what is right!

The New Covenant writes it upon your heart - MEANING - God gives you a heart for Him and His will that will respond to conscience correctly.

The law written on the conscience is sufficient to condemn but not to save. It is sufficient to demonstrate right and wrong in principle in regard to all ten commandments but not sufficient to give you a heart to seek God or obey His commandments.

HP: Contrary to your belief, I can read and comprehend Scripture. I fully understand that the heathen indeed possess a measurement of enlightenment, at least enough to condemn them when they sin in some manner, yet that in no wise makes the case you appear to be presenting that the law in its entirety is known and understood by mere heathen. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you and a few others, Paul was no heathen and yet even he had no just comprehension of the law regarding covetousness apart from reading the law “thou shalt not covet.”

Furthermore, if the entire moral law was already written on the heart of every man, why would God state the following? “Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:”

I would maintain only one in fellowship with God has a complete understanding of Gods moral law, and even still in a finite not infinite manner.

“See Dick run?”:wavey: