I have a question about Calvinism.

[DHK]

Surely you didn't think this would carry any weight.

I am truly sorry. I see a person who has a disdain for the Word of God, an unwillingness to study, who takes words superficially.
Jesus said, "unless you eat my flesh you cannot have eternal life."
Is the Greek word sarx still referring to his actual body? Perhaps it is. But does he want you to be cannibalistic about it and eat it, as he commands?
Paul's thorn in the flesh was not an actual thorn, and the flesh was not actual flesh, in the sense that flesh was used. The expression may have affected his flesh, but that is not what the expression meant.
In most of the Book of Romans "flesh" means carnal nature, or sinful nature.
If the NIV translated it that way they were simply using what is known as "dynamic equivalency" so people as yourself could understand the actual meaning of the word since you refuse to do the actual study. The KJV gives a literal translation. The NIV uses dynamic equivalency in that passage.

Let me give you another example using the KJV.

Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Here the KJV says "God forbid."
Neither "God" nor "forbid" are in the Greek manuscripts. Out of 5000 plus manuscripts you will not find God or forbid in any manuscript. Are the KJV translatore wrong? No. They used dynamic equivalency. If they had used a literal translation the translation would have been "May it not be!" But instead they chose an expression that would be the near equivalent of "May it not be," in the English language that reflects what it was actually saying in the Greek.

"Sinful nature" better reflects "flesh" in that passage in the Greek. And if you are a person that is unwilling to study to show yourself approved unto God, then maybe it is a better translation for you.

 

[trustitl]

I am truly sorry. I see a person who has a disdain for the Word of God, an unwillingness to study, who takes words superficially.

I am sorry you feel that way about me. However, having read your posts in the past I know you think that way about most people that disagree with you, so my sorrow is on your behalf.

Be kindly affectioned one to another brother.

 

[BD17]

I am sorry you feel that way about me. However, having read your posts in the past I know you think that way about most people that disagree with you, so my sorrow is on your behalf.

Be kindly affectioned one to another brother.

Looks like you are letting your doctrine(beliefs) guide you to what the word is saying instead of the word guiding you to your beliefs.

 

[trustitl]

Looks like you are letting your doctrine(beliefs) guide you to what the word is saying instead of the word guiding you to your beliefs.

Please explain.

 

[BD17]

Please explain.

DHK has shown you several examples where the literal meaning of the word cannot apply, or as is the case of "God forbids" simply does not exist. In those cases the translators had to use terms that we would understand better, ie flesh as sinful nature and so on. Your refusal to accept these truths points to the fact that if you do accept them you once again fall into not understanding what the text is saying. So instead you make the text fit into what you want to believe the text is saying. Read the ESV version of the text in is more accurate than the NIV.

 

[trustitl]

I have never advocated KJVO and have never said that the literal meaning of words is always the proper understanding in a text.

To say that the term sinful nature had to be used so we would understand it is not true. They used it because of their understanding and doctrine. I say they chose wrong. To say I am trying to make it fit what I believe is backward. They are the ones taking a literal greek word sarx and making it something that fits their beliefs.

Using God forbid is hardly equal in significance as changing flesh into sinful nature wouldn't you agree?

 

[BD17]

I have never advocated KJVO and have never said that the literal meaning of words is always the proper understanding in a text.

To say that the term sinful nature had to be used so we would understand it is not true. They used it because of their understanding and doctrine. I say they chose wrong. To say I am trying to make it fit what I believe is backward. They are the ones taking a literal greek word sarx and making it something that fits their beliefs.

Using God forbid is hardly equal in significance as changing flesh into sinful nature wouldn't you agree?

No I wouldn't because then you are advocating that it is okay to do it in some places but not in others. Within the context of Romans flesh is meant as a representaion of the body and all it encompasses, hence the long description of our sinfulness in chapter 2. The ESV says flesh also but again you have to read it with the undertanding that each chapter builds on the previous.

 

[trustitl]

It sounds like you agree with me: that flesh "is meant as a representaion (sic) of the body and all it encompasses" (your words).

That is all I say. There is no need to change it to "sinful nature".

 

[BD17]

It sounds like you agree with me: that flesh "is meant as a representaion (sic) of the body and all it encompasses" (your words).

That is all I say. There is no need to change it to "sinful nature".

Yes including our nature, the bodies nature. There may be no need for you or myself for the alternate meaning, but there may be someone else who would benefit from the use of sinful nature to help them better understand the text. I personally have no issue with the change because I have studied what is meant by flesh, and have found that they are one and the same.

 

[DHK]

It sounds like you agree with me: that flesh "is meant as a representaion (sic) of the body and all it encompasses" (your words).

That is all I say. There is no need to change it to "sinful nature".

If flesh represents "the body and all it encompasses" then it encompasses the soul and spirit as well (1Thes.5:23). It is within the soul and spirit that the sin nature lies. The "flesh," the is, the atoms and molecules that our body is made up of, cannot be sinful in and of itself. It is simply under the curse and suffers as according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that all things tend to go to a state of degeneration.

 

[trustitl]

If flesh represents "the body and all it encompasses" then it encompasses the soul and spirit as well (1Thes.5:23). It is within the soul and spirit that the sin nature lies. The "flesh," the is, the atoms and molecules that our body is made up of, cannot be sinful in and of itself. It is simply under the curse and suffers as according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that all things tend to go to a state of degeneration.

I will try to get back to this later tonight. I like what you say here:

The "flesh," the (sic) is, the atoms and molecules that our body is made up of, cannot be sinful in and of itself.

 

[eightball]

A man can recognize good and bad, and yet refuse good or bad.

Also, man can see what is good, yet understand his sinful plight or position before a most Holy and Righteous God is not right in position or identity.

The ability to choose to fall upon the grace/mercy of God's salvation through the propitiary death, ressurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ does not mean that mans pre-salvation decision of mercy is a sign of inherent goodness.

God saves. Man in this God given, and mysterious free-will recognizes good and bad, and does indeed make a choice. Why does one man choose good, and another refuses?.........He is not compelled, but only by his gift of choice which he/man summarizes both possible outcomes and makes a decision accordingly.

I think we have difficulty, understanding that man could refuse God's salvation. Romans 1 says that man by his post salvation state of life, cooperates in the hardening of his heart to Godly principles by his choice to not believe, or accept that which God has made obvious........Namely, evidences of His Creation, all around man to see and experience. Man is without excuse.

Pharoah, refused to believe, and thus a hardening of his heart happened.

Also remember that Nebuchadnezzar followed a course not unlike Pharoah's, and experienced insanity, and animalistic behavior for his refusal to accept Daniel's God....................
Yet.....Nebuchadnezzar's ........story ends with the grazing and eating grass in the fields coming to an end, and the King worshipped the God of Daniel in the end.

Free-will my brothers and sisters in the Lord, is the "corker" or mystery that God bestowed or endowed humanity with.

Free-will does not trump God's total hand in salvation, not one iota, not one inkling! Yet, it is a feature of man, that allows the appreciation or refusal of the grace(unmerited favor of God) and a pivotal point in man's make-up to accept or refuse eternal life. To refuse or to accept, is not to be the chemist who created and facilitated the solution to man's lostness, namely God's salvation of man.

 

[OldRegular]

The Second London Confession of Faith of 1689 states concerning the natural state of man [Lumpkin, page 264]:

“Man by his fall into a state of sin hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as a natural man, being altogether adverse from good, and dead in sin is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself; or to prepare himself thereunto.”

John Dagg [page 322, Manual of Theology] comments on the natural man’s inability regarding salvation, as follows:

“Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition is defective. It has always been found that men will not come to Christ for life. The Gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of man must be changed; and this change the will cannot itself effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God works in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible.”

But Divine Grace does interpose. Scripture teaches that God the Father chooses or elects those who, in Jesus Christ, will be saved. Those who are chosen in Jesus Christ will become the Saints, the ‘true believers’.

The Apostle Paul, writing to the Saints at Ephesus, summarizes this truth as follows:

Ephesians 1:3-6, KJV
3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

What does Scripture mean when it teaches that God has chosen us in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world? Please note again the statement He chose us in Him [that is, Jesus Christ] that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. Also please note in particular the statement he hath made us accepted in the beloved. It is God the Father who has made us [the elect] accepted in the beloved [Jesus Christ]. It does not say that we through any action on our part made us accepted in the beloved. I repeat the Scripture states that God, Himself, made us accepted in the beloved.

James P. Boyce, co-founder and first president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, defines election to salvation as follows [Abstract of Systematic Theology, page 347]:

“God, of His own purpose, has from eternity determined to save a definite number of mankind as individuals, not for or because of any merit or works of theirs, nor of any value of them to Him; but of His own good pleasure”.

John L. Dagg in his Manual of Theology [page 309] defines election to salvation simply as:

“All who will finally be saved, were chosen to salvation by God the Father, before the foundation of the world, and given to Jesus Christ in the Covenant of Grace.”

John I. Packer, an Anglican theologian, writes about the doctrine of election as follows [Concise Theology, page 149; see also the New Geneva Bible, page 1784]

“The biblical doctrine of election is that before Creation God selected out of the human race, foreseen as fallen, those whom He would redeem, bring to faith, justify, and glorify in and through Jesus Christ. This divine choice is an expression of free and sovereign grace, for it is unconstrained and unconditional, not merited by anything in those who are its subjects. God owes sinners no mercy of any kind, only condemnation; so it is a wonder, and a matter for endless praise, that He should choose to save any of us; and doubly so when His choice involved the giving of His own Son to suffer as sin bearer for the elect.”

W. T. Conner, a professor at the Southwestern Baptist Theological seminary early in the 20th century writes of election as follows [Christian Doctrine, page 155]:

“It [Election] means that God has decreed to bring certain ones, upon whom His heart has been eternally set, who are the objects of His eternal love, to faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour. When a man is saved he is not saved as a matter of chance or accident or fate; he is saved in pursuance of an eternal purpose of God. God saves man because He intends to. He saves a particular man, at a particular time, under a particular set of circumstances, because He intends to.”

Perhaps salvation may be simply [certainly not fully] described as resurrection from the spiritual death. Speaking of this resurrection John Dagg notes [Manual of Theology, pages 277ff]:

“So great is the change produced, that the subject of it is called a new creature as if proceeding, like Adam, directly from the creating hand of God; and he is said to be renewed, as being restored to the image of God, in which man was originally formed”

2 Corinthians 5:17, KJV
17. Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Dagg further notes:

“The change is moral. The body is unchanged; and the identity of the mind is not destroyed. The individual is conscious of being the same person that he was before; but a new direction is given to the active powers of the mind, and new affections are brought into exercise. The love of God is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost. No love to God had previously existed there; for the carnal heart is enmity against God. Love is the fulfilling of the law, the principle of all holy obedience; and when love is produced in the heart, the law of God is written there. As a new principle of action, inciting to a new mode of life, it renders the man a new creature. The production of love in the heart by the Holy Spirit, is the regeneration, or the new birth; for he that loveth, is born of God.”

“The mode in which the Holy Spirit effects this change, is beyond our understanding. All God's ways are unsearchable; and we might as well attempt to explain how he created the world, as how he new-creates the soul. With reference to this subject, the Saviour said, The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.[John 3:8, KJV] We know, from the Holy Scriptures, that God employs his truth in the regeneration of the soul. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.[James 1:18, KJV] Love to God necessarily implies knowledge of God, and this knowledge it is the province of truth to impart. But knowledge is not always connected with love. The devils know, but do not love; and wicked men delight not to retain the knowledge of God, because their knowledge of him is not connected with love. The mere presentation of the truth to the mind, is not all that is needed, in producing love to God in the heart.”

God through the richness of His grace has granted to His elect spiritual life so that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in [His] kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.