Helen,
When I sent you my personal email this morning, I had not read your post to me. I did not intend to because I felt that the points had been adequately made and I did not want to carry on. I was reaching out to try to explain off the record where I was coming from. I have great respect for you and did not wish to take you on publicly. I was willing to let your misrepresentations stand in order to avoid the conflict. Now you have left me no choice. After returning from lunch, I did read your post and am beside myself. You have misinterpreted much that I have said. You have distorted it in spite of my attempts to clarify. You have failed to deal with relevant passages. You have failed to exegete the passages you have dealt with. You have been inconsistent in your argumentation. I shall show all of this. I have tried to treat you with dignity and respect and I will continue to do so. I do not intend to let this become a tit for tat kind of deal. I have explained to you what I believe and why I believe it off the record. I will address only a few points here.
To begin with, I addressed a number of passages that you did not address. Why? You cite them in your quotation of me and immediately leave them. You cannot simply ignore the Scripture you do not like.
In the discussion of “tendency,” you have not dealt with the relevant passages. Chet questioned (rather denied) the teaching of total depravity and I listed a number of passages that clearly teach it. And the point stands: there is no “tendency” in dead. I do not argue that we do not have sinful tendencies. We certainly do. But why do we have them? Because we have a sin nature that is totally depraved.
On Romans 7, let me make some comments. Your position on Rom 7:7-11 has numerous problems but I will point out a few that preclude the possibility of your interpretation. You cannot take this passage separate from the rest of Scripture. Let me demonstrate the inconsistencies.
1) The Law in view is the Mosaic Law (as in 5:13 and most of the Pauline uses). Throughout Romans, Paul is addressing the fact that salvation cannot come by keeping the Law. The references to Israel and the oracles of God make this clear. He is also demonstrating that sin does not come by the Law. The Gentiles who do not have the Law are a law unto themselves (Rom 2 – proving that sin does not require the Law and that the Law in view is the Mosaic Law).
2) Paul is not saying that without the law there is no sin. Rom 2:12 says that those who sinned without the law[/I] will perish without the law. In Rom 5:13, Paul is clear that sin existed in the world before the arrival of the Law. Clearly knowledge of the Law is not necessary to be dead in sin.
3) Your position would make the law bad because without knowledge of the law, man would not be a sinner and would not be responsible for sin; it is only with the Law that man become condemned. Therefore, the law becomes the bad guy condemning people to sin and hell. Yet Paul rejects this conclusion in v. 7 and v. 12. Rather than the Law being bad, the law is good. What is bad? Man is. In your view, it would be better for people never to know the Law and thus never be condemned by it. But alas it is to no avail anyway because Paul declares that all men have a conscience that either excuses or accuses them (Rom 2:12-14). 2 Cor 3 also makes clear that the Law was not bad; the problem was the inability of the people to keep it. While your position would make the law bad, Paul is defending the goodness of the Law and pointing out that the Law exposes the sinfulness that is already in him.
4) Your position that knowledge of the Law brings sin and spiritual death destroys Rom 5. There, the modus operandi of justification is laid out. We became sinners in the same way we become righteousness – by imputation. You have denied the imputation of Adam’s sin and instead have chosen a form of pelagianism which denies the teaching of Rom 5. We are sinners because we are in Adam. We choose to sin because we are in Adam. We are guilty because of Adam’s sin (“for by disobedience of one many were made sinners;” “by the transgression of the one the many died” – not “by the knowledge of the Law many were made sinners or died;”) We became sinners by imputation and inherited a sin nature. We did not develop one. Just as we become sinners by being “in Adam” so we become righteous because we are in Christ.
5) Your position has rendered unnecessary the death of Christ (not intentionally to be sure). You have posited that people are not sinners until they choose to sin. Therefore, one might never choose to sin and therefore not be a sinner. In so doing, they get to heaven by their own righteousness. Paul says in Gal 3:21 21, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." You, by tacitly suggesting that righteousness can come by the Law, have rendered needless the death of Christ.
So in what sense did “Sin kill Paul”? Most likely in the sense that “forbidden fruit is sweetest.” The Law exacerbated the lusts and passions and exalted self above God. Paul likely uses coveteousness because it refers to the inner desires of the heart rather than outward actions. Therefore, sin is an attitude, not merely an action. “Those whose lives are filled with coveting are guilty of the fundamental sin; by desiring what was forbidden they thereby show that they treasure and delight in someone or something more than they delight in the one true God” (Schriener, BECNT; cf Moo, NICNT).
When I sent you my personal email this morning, I had not read your post to me. I did not intend to because I felt that the points had been adequately made and I did not want to carry on. I was reaching out to try to explain off the record where I was coming from. I have great respect for you and did not wish to take you on publicly. I was willing to let your misrepresentations stand in order to avoid the conflict. Now you have left me no choice. After returning from lunch, I did read your post and am beside myself. You have misinterpreted much that I have said. You have distorted it in spite of my attempts to clarify. You have failed to deal with relevant passages. You have failed to exegete the passages you have dealt with. You have been inconsistent in your argumentation. I shall show all of this. I have tried to treat you with dignity and respect and I will continue to do so. I do not intend to let this become a tit for tat kind of deal. I have explained to you what I believe and why I believe it off the record. I will address only a few points here.
To begin with, I addressed a number of passages that you did not address. Why? You cite them in your quotation of me and immediately leave them. You cannot simply ignore the Scripture you do not like.
In the discussion of “tendency,” you have not dealt with the relevant passages. Chet questioned (rather denied) the teaching of total depravity and I listed a number of passages that clearly teach it. And the point stands: there is no “tendency” in dead. I do not argue that we do not have sinful tendencies. We certainly do. But why do we have them? Because we have a sin nature that is totally depraved.
To my knowledge, I did not refer to “dead” as spiritually unconscious. You have attributed something to me I did not say and built a huge straw man out of it. Spiritually dead is spiritually separated from God. Dead includes inability to respond, now and in hell. It does not mean unconscious. Hell is eternal conscious torment for the spiritually dead.First of all, you did not deal with what the Bible refers to as 'dead.' It never refers to dead as 'spiritually unconscious'.
On Romans 7, let me make some comments. Your position on Rom 7:7-11 has numerous problems but I will point out a few that preclude the possibility of your interpretation. You cannot take this passage separate from the rest of Scripture. Let me demonstrate the inconsistencies.
1) The Law in view is the Mosaic Law (as in 5:13 and most of the Pauline uses). Throughout Romans, Paul is addressing the fact that salvation cannot come by keeping the Law. The references to Israel and the oracles of God make this clear. He is also demonstrating that sin does not come by the Law. The Gentiles who do not have the Law are a law unto themselves (Rom 2 – proving that sin does not require the Law and that the Law in view is the Mosaic Law).
2) Paul is not saying that without the law there is no sin. Rom 2:12 says that those who sinned without the law[/I] will perish without the law. In Rom 5:13, Paul is clear that sin existed in the world before the arrival of the Law. Clearly knowledge of the Law is not necessary to be dead in sin.
3) Your position would make the law bad because without knowledge of the law, man would not be a sinner and would not be responsible for sin; it is only with the Law that man become condemned. Therefore, the law becomes the bad guy condemning people to sin and hell. Yet Paul rejects this conclusion in v. 7 and v. 12. Rather than the Law being bad, the law is good. What is bad? Man is. In your view, it would be better for people never to know the Law and thus never be condemned by it. But alas it is to no avail anyway because Paul declares that all men have a conscience that either excuses or accuses them (Rom 2:12-14). 2 Cor 3 also makes clear that the Law was not bad; the problem was the inability of the people to keep it. While your position would make the law bad, Paul is defending the goodness of the Law and pointing out that the Law exposes the sinfulness that is already in him.
4) Your position that knowledge of the Law brings sin and spiritual death destroys Rom 5. There, the modus operandi of justification is laid out. We became sinners in the same way we become righteousness – by imputation. You have denied the imputation of Adam’s sin and instead have chosen a form of pelagianism which denies the teaching of Rom 5. We are sinners because we are in Adam. We choose to sin because we are in Adam. We are guilty because of Adam’s sin (“for by disobedience of one many were made sinners;” “by the transgression of the one the many died” – not “by the knowledge of the Law many were made sinners or died;”) We became sinners by imputation and inherited a sin nature. We did not develop one. Just as we become sinners by being “in Adam” so we become righteous because we are in Christ.
5) Your position has rendered unnecessary the death of Christ (not intentionally to be sure). You have posited that people are not sinners until they choose to sin. Therefore, one might never choose to sin and therefore not be a sinner. In so doing, they get to heaven by their own righteousness. Paul says in Gal 3:21 21, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." You, by tacitly suggesting that righteousness can come by the Law, have rendered needless the death of Christ.
So in what sense did “Sin kill Paul”? Most likely in the sense that “forbidden fruit is sweetest.” The Law exacerbated the lusts and passions and exalted self above God. Paul likely uses coveteousness because it refers to the inner desires of the heart rather than outward actions. Therefore, sin is an attitude, not merely an action. “Those whose lives are filled with coveting are guilty of the fundamental sin; by desiring what was forbidden they thereby show that they treasure and delight in someone or something more than they delight in the one true God” (Schriener, BECNT; cf Moo, NICNT).
Then why do those who sin without the Law perish without the Law?We are only held accountable for the sins we consciously choose in deliberate rebellion against God's law, and thus against God.
Now go to Exodus and Leviticus and see that there was a sacrifice for unknown sins. Unintentional sins. These are sins committed apart from knowledge of the law.Now this is interesting. Why is there a sacrifice for sins for which one is not held responsible? This contradicts your whole contention. If there is no responsibility than there is no need for a sacrifice. The demand for a sacrifice shows that there was responsibility.
This is most interesting to me. We have been sinning but we are not spiritually dead yet? I do not see any place for a life of sin in the category of spiritually alive.We die later, when we consciously rebel. But we have been sinning all along. If you do not see what he is saying about this, you are missing part of the incredible mercy and love of God!
On fairy tales, you inferred a theological point from them (that everyone was seeking something higher and better). I simply said that was a not a good place to get theological points from. It’s still not but since you clarified, I felt no need to address it again. As for the clear message of the Bible and my “never truer words were spoken” I was agreeing with you. That is the clear message of the Bible.Going on down your post, I would rather not deal on a personal level with your evasion of the fact that you accused me of getting my theology from fairy tales. What is interesting is that when I said something about the clear message of the Bible (which is where I do get my theology, by the way,) you came back with "Never have truer words been spoken."
Sorry you misunderstood. As I have read Sproul and MacArthur, and Murray, and Piper, and Whitefield, and Spurgeon, you are not here representing them very well and to prove it, read the next quote where you have totally misrepresented things.You said you were being charitable to me and encouraging me to study more. I did not see your insults as particularly charitable, but be that as it may, I checked my work with both Sproul and MacArthur when I translated their material for the deaf and I received approval from both. I do know what they were talking about! They agreed that I did!
This is embarrassing. If you know reformed theology like you claim to, then how can you make such a misrepresentative statement unless your intention was to mislead. We worry because God has commanded us to go into all the world and preach the gospel because he has sheep out there who are not of this fold. He is calling out a people for himself from every tribe and tongue and people and nation and has chosen to accomplish that work through us.You stated later that you are responding here because you see a danger in what I am advocating theologically. That is silly by your own theological stance, Larry! If those who are saved are saved and those who are damned are damned through nothing anyone can do or decide or think or say or anything else, then it does not matter one tiny little iota what anybody promotes theologically in terms of any man's salvation. God has already decided, according to you, with nothing to do with man's thoughts, choices, or anything else. So why worry?
Then why this whole thread? You have repeatedly stated that it depends on man’s choices.And do not, please, misrepresent me as saying that our salvation does not depend on the grace of God. It does. Entirely.