Jacob I loved and Esau I hated = individual election?

[Skandelon]

So one can have faith in Christ and it not be real? Where is that verse in the bible?

The book of James. "Faith without works is dead."

John chapter 2: 23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25 He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.

I see where the bible says over and over again that one who believes in Christ has everlasting life and is in a born again state. You are saying that he must perservere to the end, outrun the devil till he dies, in order for that faith to be real. Those texts don't say that. They simply say that one who believes (by faith) in Jesus Christ is born again and has everlasting life.

Assuming its real, then yes, you are right. But the only way you know its real is if it lasts. True faith will persevere

I'm still not sure what this has to do with the fact that we enter heaven through faith and we are rejected on account of our unbelief. Wasn't that the point we were discussing?

 

[Skandelon]

Because the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man is at work. The warning increases the condemnation (just like Tyre and Sidon will be judged more harshly than Sodom and Gomorrah because Tyre and Sidon existed in the time of Christ).

Actually the passages about Tyre and Sidon cause a bit of a problem for you all because Jesus clearly says, that if the signs had been shown to Sodom and Gomorrah that they would have repented. How is that possible absent the work of regeneration? Clearly Jesus believed that man's will can be convinced through signs and wonders (which God is not obligated to give).

Plus, how do you increase the condemnation of burning for eternity in hell? Is the fire hotter for Tyre and Sidon than it is for Sodom and Gomorrah. The difference is the signs and wonders and unless you think Jesus was lying then clearly the signs could have lead the ancient cities to repentance.

Yes, of course, Abraham was declared righteous through faith. However, your theology would have us believe that Abraham demonstrated this faith before he was called by God. The Bible is quite clear--when God called Abraham, Abraham was an idol worshiper and, as such, did not demonstrate "faith." God's calling work was seen in Abraham's life before he is declared righteous through faith.

Wrong. We believe the call proceeds faith, we just don't believe the call of the gospel is irresistible. However, we do recognize that with some people God does use other means to help provoke and convince the will to faith. For example, Jonah needed a big fish, Noah needed a burning bush, Paul needed a blinding light, Thomas needed to touch the scars etc. Why didn't the so called "effectual calling" work in convincing these men?

we are already condemned--because we are sinners.

Notice how I can make my argument by simply quoting the text and you have to come up with your own phrases.

I'll stick with what the scripture actually says:

"they are condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God"

and

"So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief"

Can you find a verse that says your phrase?

What you are suggesting is that we don't believe and are, therefore, condemned. That's not the case.

If God has made provision that covers the sin of the world, the ONLY thing that prevent us from entering his promised land is unbelief, because that is the only condition for the covenant of grace. Again, look for a phrase in scripture that supports your view and we'll talk about it, but until then I'm sticking with scripture.

Men are condemned because we are sinners. Paul talking about Adam says:

Romans 5:16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

We are condemned because of Adam's sin...and our own (because we are, now, by nature sinners).

This passage doesn't address our dispute because this is our condition prior to the cross. We both agree that we were condemned by the law (for sin) prior to Christ's atoning work. If you want disprove my position you must find a passage that says we remain condemned for breaking the law of God even though Christ died. You won't find it. Notice that the same "all men" who were condemned by the sin is the same "all men" who were brought justification. Thus, the only reason we don't have unversalism is because of the condition by which this justification is applied...faith.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't think the "Vine" is salvation, per se. I'm wondering, what problems for both of us do you see?

I don't think I would agree that the vine is the Gospel church. I certainly would not agree that there are two means to bring people into covenant with Him--in fact, I categorically reject that (if I am properly understanding what you are saying).

Typically, even Calvinists affirm the use of means such as the work of the church in bring the gospel.

I see the "vine" as the people of God. I'm still studying, though. I think, though, you may be reading too much into the "vine" imagery.

By the way, which translation of the Bible are you using. I don't find "vine" in mine....so it made me curious which translation you use.

When you say "the people of God" do you mean those who are "saved." Because if that is the case how are they "cut off" and "grafted in again" after being once cut off? The problem that creates is that one seems to be able to lose their salvation and get it back. Paul tells the Gentiles not to become prideful because if God cut off the natural branches he can also cut them off, and if the Jews leave their unbelief he can graft them back into the vine.

Yes, some translations refer to the root and the branches of an olive tree...same difference.

 

[RAdam]

The book of James. "Faith without works is dead."

John chapter 2: 23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25 He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.

Assuming its real, then yes, you are right. But the only way you know its real is if it lasts. True faith will persevere

I'm still not sure what this has to do with the fact that we enter heaven through faith and we are rejected on account of our unbelief. Wasn't that the point we were discussing?

So if Abraham had not taken his son Isaac up the mountain to sacrifice him to God, all those years of faithful service to God would have gone up in smoke? Give me a break.

What James is saying is faith is visibly dead without works. Saying I have faith and then not doing works wrought in faith is likened by James to me telling a man who is hungry and cold to be warm and filled and not actually giving him the things he needs to be warmed and filled. Men show faith by works. The bible doesn't simply tell you that Abraham had faith, it shows you his faith by his works. When you read Hebrews 11 you see this pattern time and again: by faith Abel did this, by faith Enoch did that, by faith Noah did this, by faith Abraham did that, etc. Faith is visible through fruit produced by it. When one confesses Christ, they are manifesting faith. When one does things that are pleasing to God, he is manifesting faith.

 

[The Archangel]

This passage doesn't address our dispute because this is our condition prior to the cross.

Paul is not at all intending to describe a pre-cross and a post-cross condition.

We both agree that we were condemned by the law (for sin) prior to Christ's atoning work.

Is that prior to Christ's actual death on the cross (AD 30 or so)? Or is that before we respond in repentance and faith to the gospel?

If you want disprove my position you must find a passage that says we remain condemned for breaking the law of God even though Christ died. You won't find it.

Actually, I don't have to find a passage, I just have to show that you are not interpreting Romans 5 correctly.

Hence:

Notice that the same "all men" who were condemned by the sin is the same "all men" who were brought justification. Thus, the only reason we don't have universalism is because of the condition by which this justification is applied...faith.

This you cannot have. In v. 18, Paul is finishing the thought from v. 12 (an anacoluthon). So, in v. 18 and 19, Paul is finishing the argument and summarizing and in doing so he uses a parallel structure:

• (18a) One trespass led to condemnation for all men corresponding to (19a) by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners

• (18b) One act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men corresponding to (19b) by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous

Paul is not intending to say that "all are brought justification." Why? The parallel of the passages. If you insist on your interpretation you have to concede that not everyone was made a sinner by Adam's trespass and I don't think you'd suggest this.

Also, your view basically denies a penal-substitution view of the atonement. Your view is much more in line with a Christus Victor idea. After all, it must be the case that Jesus' death actually accomplished its intended purpose--to redeem sinners. Jesus' death did not only make that redemption possible.

Jesus' death did not bring justification to all men, as you argue. Justification, being a legal term--especially in Paul, means to be declared not guilty. Even according to your own system of theology, it cannot be that all men are Justified by Christ's death because then all men would be justified and we know that is not the case (there are sheep and goats and there will be a separation).

Your view on Romans 5, therefore, is incorrect in the context of Paul's writings and the Bible as a whole.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Actually the passages about Tyre and Sidon cause a bit of a problem for you all because Jesus clearly says, that if the signs had been shown to Sodom and Gomorrah that they would have repented. How is that possible absent the work of regeneration? Clearly Jesus believed that man's will can be convinced through signs and wonders (which God is not obligated to give).

They cause no problem at all, once you read them in Greek. Jesus is using a second-class conditional statement which is, by definition and formula, a contrary-to fact condition. Because Jesus uses the second-class condition, it is certain that He is not intending to say Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented. He is merely using them as an example--a well-known example of sin and its consequences.

Plus, how do you increase the condemnation of burning for eternity in hell? Is the fire hotter for Tyre and Sidon than it is for Sodom and Gomorrah. The difference is the signs and wonders and unless you think Jesus was lying then clearly the signs could have lead the ancient cities to repentance.

I don't know if the fire is hotter. But we know that judgment is varied in its forms. That's what the second-class was used to illustrate--the judgment.

Wrong. We believe the call proceeds faith, we just don't believe the call of the gospel is irresistible. However, we do recognize that with some people God does use other means to help provoke and convince the will to faith. For example, Jonah needed a big fish, Noah needed a burning bush, Paul needed a blinding light, Thomas needed to touch the scars etc. Why didn't the so called "effectual calling" work in convincing these men?

I'll be a bit ugly here, purely in jest! "Noah needed a burning bush?" What Bible are you reading? :smilewinkgrin: OK. Ugliness over. This has made me think of some bad typos or gaffes in speech I've made. None are immune!

First, the Jonah example doesn't apply--Jonah was already a believer who was being disobedient (something even the best of Christians can still do). Jonah was obviously not brought to faith in God through the fish. He was merely returned to the mission God had for him.

Secondly, I don't know why you think the effectual call and the burning bush or a blinding light need to be two separate things. Calvinists believe the effectual call, obviously, but the call never implies a restriction to a particular means. Therefore, the blinding light on the Damascus road was a means of calling effectually. In the lives of many Christians, the means of calling is different, but it is an effectual calling nonetheless.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

Allan, I agree with what you have said here, although I like to say "flesh" and not sin nature. You see, I do not see a change in man's nature when Adam and Eve sinned. It is clear to me that they had the ability to sin before they actually sinned or else they could not have. Isn't that so?

God made man upright. He was sinless and pure. He was very good. But at the same time, God made man flesh, and the flesh is weak. The flesh carries desires and lusts. We can see this in Eve's temptation.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Eve was drawn away and enticed by her fleshly desires. This fruit looked good to eat and was beautiful to look at. It was desired to make one wise.

You see, Eve already had these lusts and desires in her before she actually sinned. And this is what we are all born with. This is pointed out many times in scripture.

Matt 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But, every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed.

The scriptures say we are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lust. This is the flesh. We are not compelled to sin, but we are enticed, or seduced. That is the definition of the word "drawn away" in vs. 14.

So, I personally do not see this "fall" people talk about. Oh, I was taught that and believed it for many years, but when I examined scripture I could not find it. Man was never as good as God. Man was good and sinless when created, but we were made flesh with desires and lusts that draw or entice us toward sin. But man is respsonsible to control these lusts and desires and so is accountable when he gives in and sins.

Thank you Winman. This is a very good explanation of what happened during the temptation. You do seem to have a good grasp of theology. It's a pleasure to listen to you.

 

[Skandelon]

So if Abraham had not taken his son Isaac up the mountain to sacrifice him to God, all those years of faithful service to God would have gone up in smoke? Give me a break.

huh?

(can any one interpret for me, I just can't follow this guy)

What James is saying is faith is visibly dead without works. Saying I have faith and then not doing works wrought in faith is likened by James to me telling a man who is hungry and cold to be warm and filled and not actually giving him the things he needs to be warmed and filled. Men show faith by works. The bible doesn't simply tell you that Abraham had faith, it shows you his faith by his works. When you read Hebrews 11 you see this pattern time and again: by faith Abel did this, by faith Enoch did that, by faith Noah did this, by faith Abraham did that, etc. Faith is visible through fruit produced by it. When one confesses Christ, they are manifesting faith. When one does things that are pleasing to God, he is manifesting faith.

Yes...and? I'm still not sure what this has to do with our discussion regarding Heb. 3. And I'm not sure why you are debating my position on this matter since we both agree that once one is truly redeemed he will certainly persevere.

 

[Skandelon]

Is that prior to Christ's actual death on the cross (AD 30 or so)? Or is that before we respond in repentance and faith to the gospel?

Rom 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Why do you suppose Paul says that God left the sins committed before the cross unpunished? Before the cross God's wrath for sin remained, but after the cross it does not. The sin of the world has been atoned. Thus making the faith the only requirement to enter covenant with God.

Actually, I don't have to find a passage, I just have to show that you are not interpreting Romans 5 correctly.

I've shown you at least 2 passages so far that state the exact phrase I believe, you have yet to show a single passage that even implies what you believe.

Jesus' death did not bring justification to all men, as you argue.

I think its interesting how I just quote a passage directly from the text and you argue with it.

You say, it "did not bring justification to all men." while the scripture says, "one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men," and "the free gift following many trespasses brought justification."

Again, I'll just stick with what the scripture actually says. If someone walks up to me and asks the question, "Did Jesus death bring justification to all men." I'll simply quote the scripture verbatim and leave it at that. You on the other hand can give them your complex dissertations.

If you are right, then when we get to heaven I'll say, "Sorry, God, all I did was quote your text verbatim. I wish you made me smart enough to understand what you really meant when you said, 'it leads to justification and life for all men,' but you didn't so all I could do was quote it."

 

[Skandelon]

They cause no problem at all, once you read them in Greek. Jesus is using a second-class conditional statement which is, by definition and formula, a contrary-to fact condition. Because Jesus uses the second-class condition, it is certain that He is not intending to say Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented. He is merely using them as an example--a well-known example of sin and its consequences.

Dang, I wonder why the scripture says he will use the weak to shame the wise when you have to be a freakin genius Greek scholar to understand the intent of every passage???

So, you expect us to believe that when Jesus said, "they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." He really meant, "Sodom and Gomorrah would NOT have repented." Okay, if you say so. :BangHead: I see a pattern developing here. Scripture clearly states something VERBATIM and you counter it. I don't even need to be here, you can just argue with scripture because all I have to do is QUOTE IT.

I'll be a bit ugly here, purely in jest! "Noah needed a burning bush?" What Bible are you reading? :smilewinkgrin: OK. Ugliness over. This has made me think of some bad typos or gaffes in speech I've made. None are immune!

It was a test. You passed. :smilewinkgrin:

First, the Jonah example doesn't apply--Jonah was already a believer who was being disobedient (something even the best of Christians can still do). Jonah was obviously not brought to faith in God through the fish. He was merely returned to the mission God had for him.

Agreed, but its an example of God's use of means to effectuate his sovereign will, which seems a bit extreme and redundant if indeed God is the one who decrees our desires to begin with...

Secondly, I don't know why you think the effectual call and the burning bush or a blinding light need to be two separate things. Calvinists believe the effectual call, obviously, but the call never implies a restriction to a particular means. Therefore, the blinding light on the Damascus road was a means of calling effectually. In the lives of many Christians, the means of calling is different, but it is an effectual calling nonetheless.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I understand that, as I used to believe it myself, but I only mention it because it just seems redundant. You have God hardening men so that they can't believe even though they were born total unable to willingly believe in the first place. You have God burning bushes, using big fish, blinding lights, envy, miraculous signs and all kinds of means to provoke men who are being effectually called by the inward working of the spirit. I mean, what's the point? If an outward means like "envy" aint really what provokes the will to believe, then why even mention it? (Rm 11:14) It just doesn't fit.

 

[RAdam]

huh?

(can any one interpret for me, I just can't follow this guy)


.

In James 2 he is discussing faith and works, as you referenced. His example there is Abraham. He points to an event in Abraham's life when he, by faith, followed God's commandment to sacrifice his son Isaac to God as a burnt offering. This, says James, fullfills Genesis 15:6 which said that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. If Abraham had not obeyed, if he had not had works to go with his faith, would his faith been any less geniune? Of course not. Would that have shown that he wasn't saved? No. He still had years of faithful service to God in his past. The point James is making is not that only true faith does this or that. His point, rather, is to exhort us to exhibit our faith by works, like Abraham did.

 

[Skandelon]

In James 2 he is discussing faith and works, as you referenced. His example there is Abraham. He points to an event in Abraham's life when he, by faith, followed God's commandment to sacrifice his son Isaac to God as a burnt offering. This, says James, fullfills Genesis 15:6 which said that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. If Abraham had not obeyed, if he had not had works to go with his faith, would his faith been any less geniune? Of course not. Would that have shown that he wasn't saved? No. He still had years of faithful service to God in his past. The point James is making is not that only true faith does this or that. His point, rather, is to exhort us to exhibit our faith by works, like Abraham did.

And that contributes to our discussion how?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm just not seeing how this contradicts anything I have said so far. I believe true faith will persevere to the end, don't you?

How does this all help the original discussion that lead down this rabbit trail?

 

[The Archangel]

Rom 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Why do you suppose Paul says that God left the sins committed before the cross unpunished? Before the cross God's wrath for sin remained, but after the cross it does not. The sin of the world has been atoned. Thus making the faith the only requirement to enter covenant with God.

You are incorrect. Sins before the cross had to be paid because the blood of bulls and goats can't ultimately take away sin.

If, as you say, the sin of the world has indeed been atoned for, why are people sent to hell? I know..."Because they don't believe." But wouldn't that unbelief be a sin and wasn't all sin atoned for? How can this be? It can't.

It is becoming apparent that you theology is Pelagian.

I've shown you at least 2 passages so far that state the exact phrase I believe, you have yet to show a single passage that even implies what you believe.

I think its interesting how I just quote a passage directly from the text and you argue with it.

You say, it "did not bring justification to all men." while the scripture says, "one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men," and "the free gift following many trespasses brought justification."

Again, I'll just stick with what the scripture actually says. If someone walks up to me and asks the question, "Did Jesus death bring justification to all men." I'll simply quote the scripture verbatim and leave it at that. You on the other hand can give them your complex dissertations.

If you are right, then when we get to heaven I'll say, "Sorry, God, all I did was quote your text verbatim. I wish you made me smart enough to understand what you really meant when you said, 'it leads to justification and life for all men,' but you didn't so all I could do was quote it."

Dang, I wonder why the scripture says he will use the weak to shame the wise when you have to be a freakin genius Greek scholar to understand the intent of every passage???

So, you expect us to believe that when Jesus said, "they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." He really meant, "Sodom and Gomorrah would NOT have repented." Okay, if you say so. :BangHead: I see a pattern developing here. Scripture clearly states something VERBATIM and you counter it. I don't even need to be here, you can just argue with scripture because all I have to do is QUOTE IT.

But there are different genres of literature and nuance of the Greek language--which apparently you patently deny. The second-class conditional sentence is what it is--a fact of the Greek language. You only want to deny it because it thwarts one of your precious presuppositions. The second-class is the contrary-to-fact condition, sorry if you don't like it. If you don't like it, that really too bad--take it up with Homer, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, etc.

By the way, your smugness is noted. You claim to quote scripture (in the Tyre/Sidon, Sodom/Gomorrah passage) when, in reality, you are quoting a translation. Now, translation are very good and quite sufficient. However, there is nuance in the original language that no translation can capture. This is why seminarians learn Greek and Hebrew.

Greek, for instance, has the passive which means the subject is acted upon. This is especially important when considering Jesus' words in John 3:3 "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." That phrase is not imperative and it is passive. Jesus is not telling Nicodemus to do something. Rather, He is saying something must be done to Nicodemus.

Any true expositor must see what the author's main point is--and that includes grammar, vocabulary, syntax, etc. If we are not taking the author's main point, we are just fooling ourselves. If we don't search for the author's main point we are not placing ourselves in submission to scripture and we are, in fact, placing scripture in submission to us. And if you do that, you have deeper problems.

The pattern I see developing in you is that you want scripture to say something or mean something that goes against the author's main point or the grammar that he uses. That's dangerous ground.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[RAdam]

You said James is teaching that if one doesn't perserver their faith wasn't real. I asked the question, what if Abraham (James' chief example of faith and works) didn't obey God by faith? Would his faith have been exposed as not a real faith?

 

[Skandelon]

You are incorrect. Sins before the cross had to be paid because the blood of bulls and goats can't ultimately take away sin.

So can bulls and goats work now? Obviously not. Why do you suppose we don't sacrifice animals anymore? BECAUSE CHRIST'S ATONEMENT CHANGED SOMETHING. God's wrath has been appeases once and for all!!!

If, as you say, the sin of the world has indeed been atoned for, why are people sent to hell? I know..."Because they don't believe."

Bingo :thumbsup:

And that is a direct quote from SCRIPTURE, not me.

But wouldn't that unbelief be a sin and wasn't all sin atoned for? How can this be? It can't.

If the covenant of Grace has a condition of faith then that would be the only thing that would keep someone from being saved. They all had been bought (as scripture clearly teaches); but God sets a condition for them to avoid condemnation. They must believe. (by the way, another rabbit trail: what do you suppose is the meant by the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?")

It is becoming apparent that you theology is Pelagian.

You can label and dismiss me all day long, but that doesn't change the clear reading of the text. But I think everyone here knows that Pelagian's denied the effects of Original Sin and I do not.

I wanted to point out that you never dealt with the passage out of John 12 where Jesus said that my words will be your judge.

But there are different genres of literature and nuance of the Greek language--which apparently you patently deny. The second-class conditional sentence is what it is--a fact of the Greek language. You only want to deny it because it thwarts one of your precious presuppositions. The second-class is the contrary-to-fact condition, sorry if you don't like it. If you don't like it, that really too bad--take it up with Homer, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, etc.

You don't need a presupposition to understand what Jesus clearly and plainly said, "they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." And you say, "they would NOT have repented." I'll stick with scripture. You can stick with your "contrary-to-fact conditions." How about we just apply that little greek trick to any thing we don't like in scripture?

The "contrary to fact condition" in this text is that they weren't shown signs and wonders, not Jesus' actual conclusion and clear statement. Think about it. If what you are saying is true and the cities of Sodom and Gomorra would NOT have repented even if they were shown all these same signs and wonders then what point is Jesus making? Is he lying for effect? Is he bluffing? If they would have done the exact same thing as what Tyre and Sidon did then what the heck was Jesus even trying to communicate?

By the way, your smugness is noted. You claim to quote scripture (in the Tyre/Sidon, Sodom/Gomorrah passage) when, in reality, you are quoting a translation. Now, translation are very good and quite sufficient. However, there is nuance in the original language that no translation can capture. This is why seminarians learn Greek and Hebrew.

I don't mean to be smug, but this just seems absurd to me. Translations are produced by Greek and Hebrew scholars and NOT ONE translation I can find says that those ancient cities would NOT have repented (I just read 32 of them). Were all those translators wrong in translating the original intent of the authors?

I took Greek and my wife is a tutor for Greek students and the only "contrary to fact condition" in this text is that those cities weren't show signs and wonders, but 'CONTRARY TO THOSE FACTS' Jesus is supposing they had been shown the same signs and wonders as Tyre and Sidon. His conclusions are not "contrary to themselves" (as you suppose) they are only contrary to what actually happened because those cities were never shown those signs and wonders. Had they been shown those signs and wonders then they would have believed. If not, then what the HECK was Jesus even saying? Why would he lie to them and tell them that they would have repented? Does that increase their judgement for Jesus to "pretend" that another city would have repented?

Don't you see why this seems SOOO far fetched? I mean, I am pretty objective about stuff, but this is just absurd to me.

 

[Skandelon]

You said James is teaching that if one doesn't perserver their faith wasn't real.

And you disagree with this? Why? You think if someone appears to believe and doesn't persevere in that faith that it WAS real? I don't understand. Why are you debating this point? Aren't you Calvinistic?

I asked the question, what if Abraham (James' chief example of faith and works) didn't obey God by faith? Would his faith have been exposed as not a real faith?

I suppose James would have just picked another example of Abraham's obedience, I don't know? What difference does it make?

 

[The Archangel]

The "contrary to fact condition" in this text is that they weren't shown signs and wonders, not Jesus' actual conclusion and clear statement. Think about it. If what you are saying is true and the cities of Sodom and Gomorra would NOT have repented even if they were shown all these same signs and wonders then what point is Jesus making? Is he lying for effect? Is he bluffing? If they would have done the exact same thing as what Tyre and Sidon did then what the heck was Jesus even trying to communicate?

I don't mean to be smug, but this just seems absurd to me. Translations are produced by Greek and Hebrew scholars and NOT ONE translation I can find says that those ancient cities would NOT have repented (I just read 32 of them). Were all those translators wrong in translating the original intent of the authors?

I took Greek and my wife is a tutor for Greek students and the only "contrary to fact condition" in this text is that those cities weren't show signs and wonders, but 'CONTRARY TO THOSE FACTS' Jesus is supposing they had been shown the same signs and wonders as Tyre and Sidon. His conclusions are not "contrary to themselves" (as you suppose) they are only contrary to what actually happened because those cities were never shown those signs and wonders. Had they been shown those signs and wonders then they would have believed. If not, then what the HECK was Jesus even saying? Why would he lie to them and tell them that they would have repented? Does that increase their judgement for Jesus to "pretend" that another city would have repented?

Don't you see why this seems SOOO far fetched? I mean, I am pretty objective about stuff, but this is just absurd to me.

Your passion is blinding you to what I actually said.

I said: They cause no problem at all, once you read them in Greek. Jesus is using a second-class conditional statement which is, by definition and formula, a contrary-to fact condition. Because Jesus uses the second-class condition, it is certain that He is not intending to say Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented. He is merely using them as an example--a well-known example of sin and its consequences.

Of course the contrary-to-fact is that the signs were not performed. I was not intending, as you suppose, to say that they couldn't have responded. I don't know if they could have, even though you suppose you do. As you will see above, I said "[Jesus] is using them [Sodom and Gomorrah] as an example" to illustrate the woes He is pronouncing. He is not intending to say Sodom and Gomorrah could have or would have repented. The textual unit is an example. Jesus is, likely, using hyperbole.

By the way, we both have the cities wrong (if we're talking about Matthew 11). But, that's not too important right now.

As for translations...even the best Hebrew and Greek scholars will tell you that no translation is perfect--not even my beloved ESV. Many things don't come through. Does that mean that translations are not sufficient? No, of course not. It does mean, however, that to find the main point, sometimes one has to dig deeper--into the original texts. It is the same as reading a biography about someone and reading that same person's autobiography. The autobiography will have nuance that is lost in the biographer's work. It is always better to go straight the proverbial horse's mouth.

You don't need a presupposition to understand what Jesus clearly and plainly said, "they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." And you say, "they would NOT have repented." I'll stick with scripture. You can stick with your "contrary-to-fact conditions." How about we just apply that little greek trick to any thing we don't like in scripture?

Besides you putting words into my mouth, your disrespect for the text is astonishing. Greek is not a "trick." It is the original. Sometimes nuance is desperately important. To claim "I'll stick to scripture" and place that over/against searching to find the point of a passage by consulting the original language is disingenuous at best. Essentally, you are placing yourself against the text when you make ridiculous statements like this. Sad.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

[/I]Of course the contrary-to-fact is that the signs were not performed. I was not intending, as you suppose, to say that they couldn't have responded. I don't know if they could have, even though you suppose you do.

I'm not the one supposing they could have repented, Jesus is, argue with him.

As you will see above, I said "[Jesus] is using them [Sodom and Gomorrah] as an example" to illustrate the woes He is pronouncing. He is not intending to say Sodom and Gomorrah could have or would have repented.

Even though he said they could have, I understand.

The textual unit is an example. Jesus is, likely, using hyperbole.

Which is it? Contrary-to-fact or hyperbole? And typically when scripture uses hyperbole the intent is still clear. If indeed the ancient cities could not have repented, then what was the intent of the hyperbole of saying they could? Was he just pretending or exaggerating?

Besides you putting words into my mouth, your disrespect for the text is astonishing.

I'm sorry, but at least I'm not putting words into Jesus' mouth and thus disrespecting the intent of his actual words.

To claim "I'll stick to scripture" and place that over/against searching to find the point of a passage by consulting the original language is disingenuous at best.

You assume I haven't looked that the original language. In fact, I have looked at the original language and I see no viable reason for dismissing Jesus' actual words as somehow untrue. I'm sorry, maybe we need to just agree to disagree on this point.

Can you give me a final answer with regard to the olive tree (vine) and its branches/roots?

What do you think the tree represents? Do you still think it's "the people of God?"

 

[The Archangel]

I'm not the one supposing they could have repented, Jesus is, argue with him.

Even though he said they could have, I understand.

Which is it? Contrary-to-fact or hyperbole? And typically when scripture uses hyperbole the intent is still clear. If indeed the ancient cities could not have repented, then what was the intent of the hyperbole of saying they could? Was he just pretending or exaggerating?

I'm sorry, but at least I'm not putting words into Jesus' mouth and thus disrespecting the intent of his actual words.

You assume I haven't looked that the original language. In fact, I have looked at the original language and I see no viable reason for dismissing Jesus' actual words as somehow untrue. I'm sorry, maybe we need to just agree to disagree on this point.

Can you give me a final answer with regard to the olive tree (vine) and its branches/roots?

What do you think the tree represents? Do you still think it's "the people of God?"

First, I'm not "putting words into Jesus' mouth." I'm simply pointing out that Jesus is making an example and in doing so, He is not intending to say "they would have believed" as a simple statement of fact. Obviously, they did not believe. Is it because no signs and wonders were performed? It is certainly possible that God could have done signs and wonders and through them called people to Himself. We know He didn't. The passage is an example and not intended as a theological discourse. The same can be said of a parable.

Preachers drive me crazy when they preach a parable and make doctrine out of them. Why? Because parables are illustrative by nature and, with rare exception--like the parable of the sower--are not explained theologically and are only to illustrate a point which has already been made in the text.

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. I still think the Olive Tree is the people of God.

 

[The Archangel]

You say, it "did not bring justification to all men." while the scripture says, "one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men," and "the free gift following many trespasses brought justification."

Again, I'll just stick with what the scripture actually says. If someone walks up to me and asks the question, "Did Jesus death bring justification to all men." I'll simply quote the scripture verbatim and leave it at that. You on the other hand can give them your complex dissertations.

If you are right, then when we get to heaven I'll say, "Sorry, God, all I did was quote your text verbatim. I wish you made me smart enough to understand what you really meant when you said, 'it leads to justification and life for all men,' but you didn't so all I could do was quote it."

I think its interesting how I just quote a passage directly from the text and you argue with it.

But, you are clearly not understanding context. According to your practice of "quoting" scripture, I could say "Psalm 14 says "there is no God." See, all I'm doing is quoting scripture. But context, of course, is important in Psalm 14 and every other passage because the full text of Psalm 14:1 is "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Likewise, when you claim that "all" have been justified according to Romans 3:21ff, you are missing an essential contextual component. In this passage "all" does not mean everyone without exception. In Romans 3, "all" means Jews and Gentiles alike.

How is this shown? The end of chapter 2 makes it abundantly clear that Paul is talking to Jews. He continues that thought through chapter 3 and then, in verse 9 he addresses both Jews and Gentiles (Greeks).

When we get to v. 21, Paul discusses the Law, which, in Paul, refers to the Law of Moses, and says that the righteousness of God has been made know apart from the law.

V. 23 "All have sinned" refers to both Jews and Gentiles. V. 24 says "all are justified by grace as a gift" and this refers to both Jews and Gentiles and it points to the theological fact that grace is unearnable (contrary to the Jew's understanding)

V. 25 calls Jesus a propitiation, meaning that He turned back God's wrath by taking it for us (as a substitute).

V. 25-26 answers the "why?" Because He (God) had passed over--not paid for--former sins. The sin of David, Moses, Abraham, etc. had not been paid, because the blood of bulls and goats can't ultimately take away sin. God is not able to forgive sin by just "writing it off;" He requires a payment. Jesus is that payment for the ones in the OT who's faith had been counted as righteousness.

V. 26 clearly says that God is just and the one who justifies. But, whom does He justify "the one who has faith in Christ."

Now, context again, Paul's use of the word "Justification" is usually, if not always in Romans, written in judicial/legal language. Paul's usage of justification means "declared not guilty."

Paul is essentially saying that both Jews and Gentiles are saved by the same sacrifice of Christ. He is not saying that everyone without exception is "justified."

Certainly, you would not suggest that even unbelievers are counted as "not guilty," unless, of course, you are a universalist.

Blessings,

The Archangel