Adam and Eve, the sin nature through the man, and women in ministry
Adam’s sin hung us all out to dry
The question has come up on this blog about whether Adam had a sin nature at the fall that would have been passed on to all of us, and if this is an issue that is important regarding women in ministry. After all, we need to know why it is that only Adam would bring sin into the world and if all of us have something “hanging” onto us from just on man, why is that? We need to know why sin didn’t come into the world through the woman. Is this because she was “under” the man so that anything she did was not placed on her account but on his account? These questions and more will be answered in this post. First of all, it should be noted that the term “sin nature” is not found in the Scriptures. The Biblical terms are “old man”, “old self”, “body of flesh”, “in the flesh”, “uncircumcised in heart” along with the symbol of the old nature – the foreskin of the heart. Here are just of a few of the verses that talk about the old nature in these terms.
Colossians 3:9 (NKJV) Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,
Ephesians 4:22 (NASB) that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,
Colossians 2:11 (NASB) and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
Romans 8:13 (NASB) for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Romans 7:14 (NASB) The Conflict of Two Natures 14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
Deuteronomy 10:16 (NASB) “So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.
Acts 7:51 (NASB) “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.
God did not create mankind to be this way with sin controlling our lives. Mankind was created perfect and without sin, but a change happened when Adam chose to act in rebellion without any deception on his part that would have caused him to fall into sin and when Adam had the full knowledge of the truth. How long Adam and Eve had been in their state of perfection before the fall is debatable. The only age given for Adam when he was outside the garden is at the birth of Seth who is said to be in the image of his Father Adam. Adam was then 130 years old. Adam had passed on his own fallen image to his children as none of them were born perfect as he had been created perfect. If Adam was 130 when Seth was born, it certainly is possible that Adam could have lived as much as a hundred years or more before he was kicked out of the garden and before Eve gave birth to their first child. Whatever the time period, Adam and Eve were sinless during that entire time until the fall. This is in stark contrast to mankind after Adam, as all of us can hardly live one day without sin. The difference between the ability to live a sinless life for perhaps as long as a hundred years or more and not being able to live sinless for a day is the result of the significant effect of what we call the sin nature or the old man who is now a part of the core of our being because we were all “in” Adam when he fell. There is something in us that has been tainted by the fall.
1 Corinthians 15:22 (NASB) For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
Romans 5:14-19 talks about the effect of the one man’s sin upon the human race.
Romans 5:14-19 (NASB) 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
There was a condemnation that came to all men because of just one transgression of one man in rebellion. We will pick this up a bit later. There are several common errors that come from the teaching about the effect of Adam’s sin on the world. The first common error has caused many to reject the teaching of Adam’s sin having any effect on us. That error that has been taught by many is the doctrine that Adam’s offspring are charged by God with Adam’s sin. The Bible lays this error to rest by stating that the son will not bear the punishment for the father’s sin.
Ezekiel 18:20 (NASB) “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
It is impossible for Adam’s sin to be charged to our account. In other words, although we get the nature of the “old man” through Adam, no person will ever end up in hell to pay for Adam’s sin. Anyone who goes to hell will be there solely for their own sin because God does not charge the son with the actual sin of the father. The other error is the thinking that God made Adam just like us as far as our ability to sin. Mankind is not just able to sin, but we have been made slaves to sin with the propensity to sin as if it is just a part of our created nature. Watch a young child and see how naturally they learn how to lie without anyone ever teaching them this sin. But Adam was not this way. He was created able to sin when tempted but he was also created able not to sin. He was created with sin having no hold on him. He could turn his back on sin as easily as shooing a fly off of his shoulder because that was his nature as a perfect sinless man. The only way that Adam or Eve could sin would be through deception or through willful rebellion. There was no other way possible as sin did not live in Adam or Eve. A similar situation happened with the creation of one of God’s foremost angels. He was created perfect until the day that sin was found in him. Through one act of rebellion against God, he became a sinner who now cannot stop sinning. In fact, Jesus said that there is no truth in him. His nature went from perfection to complete rebellion. The very focus of his existence now as satan is the life of an opposer of God and an accuser of the brethren. It was only one sin and that one act of rebellion that took a perfect creature to the place of a habitual sinner without the ability to get back to where he had fallen from. Adam was in this same place. When Adam chose to rebel against God’s one law in an act of rebellion, he fell from his place of perfection into the life of a habitual sinner. And it is Adam’s rebellion that we inherit. Adam’s rebellion tainted his very being at the moment that he reached out and touched the fruit and ate. It was because he ate with his eyes wide open to the truth and without any deception to cause him to act in unbelief, he acted in rebellion to the truth that he believed. Adam fell and just like satan he was not able to get back to the place where he had fallen from. He now was a rebel and a slave to sin just like all of his children after him. There are three remaining questions that need to be asked and answered:
1. Why was Eve not charged with bringing sin into the world?
Eve was not charged with bringing sin into the world because she did not sin in rebellion against God. Eve was deceived into disobeying God’s command and so although she sinned, she did not sin in the way of satan the first rebellious one. It is impossible for Eve to bring the nature of rebellion to her seed because she never sinned in rebellion. Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1 that he himself was an example of one who sinned in ignorance and unbelief and because he didn’t sin in outright rebellion against God, he received mercy.
1 Timothy 1:13 (NASB) even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;
Eve received mercy from God because she did not sin willfully in rebellion. It was her seed that would be the Messiah and this was God’s grace and mercy towards her and through the Messiah that brought mercy towards us as the children of Adam. The fact that Eve did not bring sin into the world has absolutely nothing to do with what some teach is the place of the man having a priority role so that he was the sole one responsible for sin. This unfortunate teaching has permeated the church where many teach that because Adam was male he had some kind of special authority over the world as the sole ruler. This is just not true. The difference between Adam and Eve as far as the original sin and the curse that was brought into the world is solely because of the way that Adam sinned in rebellion. It has nothing to do with Adam taking the blame because of his maleness. God did not call Adam to take the blame for Eve’s sin. God called them both to account for their sin individually but their individual sin was committed in different ways and this difference was used by God to bring mercy into the world through the seed of the woman. So through Adam was brought inherited rebellion and through Eve was brought the mercy of God through the Messiah. There were two different reasons for sin and two different effects on the world.
2. Why is it very important to our faith to understand the “old man” nature that each one of us has inherited from Adam?
It is importance to understand the place that Adam had in bringing the “old man” nature of rebellion to each of us because Adam’s place of passing the inheritance of his own nature of rebellion to us is set up in Scripture as a type and contrast to the last Adam who is the Life-Giver who is able to pass to us the inheritance of His nature of His perfect and sinless life so that we can be reconciled to God through His blood.
1 Corinthians 15:45 (NASB) So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
3. Why is it important for Eve to have remained with her pre-fall ability to not sin after the fall so that she could remain as one who was never a rebellious sinner?
It is important that Eve did not take on a sin nature of rebellion for it was her seed alone that would be without inherited sin in order for the Messiah to be born sinless and without the natural inclination to sin as a slave to sin. Eve was not taken from Adam after he sinned and thus Eve was the only woman who did not have Adam’s old man nature. She was the only one that the Messiah could come through her own lineage. If Eve sinned in rebellion there would be no one left for the Messiah to come through. Adam was the only one kicked out of the garden because of his new rebellious nature. Adam could never go back to where he started as he had the nature of rebellion from his one sin. God kicked the one man Adam out of the garden because his new nature made him a threat to the tree of life which was now forbidden to both Adam and Eve. God had told them that they would surely die if they ate the fruit. God never prophesied that Eve might rebel and eat from the tree of life after the fall because Eve still had the ability to not sin. It was only Adam who possessed the nature of rebellion and who would act consistently with that nature. It was because of him that the garden was closed and because of Adam alone that the tree of life needed to be protected. Eve would have obeyed God’s new prohibition because she was no longer deceived and because she could obey. God prophesied that she would produce the seed that would be the Messiah and so we can know for certain that she did not end up in rebellion as a sinner like Adam with an old man nature. The Scriptures have told us the truth when they say that sin entered the world through one man. If Eve had given herself over to rebellion like Adam after she left the garden, she too would have brought sin into the world. The fact that the Scriptures remove Eve as having any part of bringing rebellion into the world shows us that God was able to take the evil that satan had planned for mankind and turn it around by God Himself destroying the destroyer through His act of mercy to the very one who sinned because of the deceiver’s deception. God receives the ultimate glory because He brought mercy to one who had sinned in her ignorance and unbelief. And God received the ultimate glory by bringing the Messiah into the world as the very seed of the woman who received His mercy. Do you see God’s plan? Do you see the difference between the sin of rebellion that has no way to get back to innocence and the unintentional sin that God covers over with the blood of the one true lamb of God? This is an important issue and I challenge us all to think this one through so that we can put all the pieces together to bring a full picture of the Messiah and what He has done.
426 thoughts on “Adam and Eve, the sin nature through the man, and women in ministry”
“It is important that Eve did not take on a sin nature of rebellion for it was her seed alone that would be without inherited sin in order for the Messiah to be born sinless and without the natural inclination to sin as a slave to sin. Eve was not taken from Adam after he sinned and thus Eve was the only woman who did not have Adam’s old man nature. She was the only one that the Messiah could come through her own lineage. If Eve sinned in rebellion there would be no one left for the Messiah to come through.”
But Mary, of Eve’s lineage and a virgin, carried the “sin nature of rebellion'” because she was born of both mother and FATHER.
Lin,
You are exactly right. Mary was not without sin since she had a human father and the sin nature spreads through the father. This is why Jesus had to be virgin born. It wasn’t an option for the Son of Man, it was needed in order for him to be our Messiah that was the lamb without spot or blemish.
Here is the link to the post where I use graphics to explain why it was necessary for the Messiah to be virgin born and why Mary was not sinless herself. It is a good background article for this post.
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/
I am open to the idea that Eve is virtuous after leaving the garden but only if one of two interpretations of Gen 3:16 are followed:
Either Gen 3:16 is exclusively about Adam and Eve and is inapplicable to any other marriages;
or Eve’s “desire” is exclusive to Eve and Adam’s “rule” is a condition of both his sons and daughters.
What I can not accept is a situation where the virtue of Eve is passed on to all wives but the villiany of Adam is passed on to all husbands. If no woman is like Eve because of all women’s (other than Eve) inheritance of a sin nature from Adam, then no woman can replicate Eve’s sinless desire and it can not be applicable to any marriage.
Of course, both acceptable situations raise serious concerns for egalitarians. If Gen 3:16 is only about Adam and Eve, then no one can claim that males necessarily inherit a trait of ruling from Adam or that females inherit from Eve some desire to be benevolent toward their husbands even when those husbands behave badly. Any anecdotal evidence in support of such a conclusion is purley coincidental.
On the other hand, if everyone inherits Adam’s “rule”, men and women alike, then that lends weight to the comp claim that women want to rule men just as much as men want to rule women. They just go about it in different ways.
“You are exactly right. Mary was not without sin since she had a human father and the sin nature spreads through the father. This is why Jesus had to be virgin born. It wasn’t an option for the Son of Man, it was needed in order for him to be our Messiah that was the lamb without spot or blemish.”
So, even though Mary inherited the sin nature from her own father and carries it around with her, she cannot pass it on because she is a woman? She can have it…but cannot pass it on, right?
So when my daughter is naughty, I can thank my husband for passing on the sin nature to her. I am innocent. :o)
(Sounds like a reversal of what the comps do with blaming Eve. I blame them both for rebellion, deception and subsequent bad choices)
gengwall,
I am very pleased that you are allowing yourself to be open about Eve not having sinned in rebellion after the fall.
This is a false dilemma which is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t have to be a or b. Eve’s desire is not exclusive to Eve as men are to have this same desire and they are encouraged to “leave and cleave”.
The term “be joined” means:
Jesus represents the perfect example of a husband who left heaven to pay the price for his wife and He “cleaves” to her and promises that He will never leave her. His longing and desire is for her.
But for us – all of us humans get the “full meal deal” of the sin nature with the possibility of committing every sin. While it is relatively uncommon for women to be the abusers of men it is not unheard of. They too can have this nature if they follow the inclination of evil in that direction. But as our world shows, it is far more common for men to have this sin that manifests a stronghold in their lives because men are more apt to be aggressive and to want to control every situation. But it is not a “given” that all men will seek to rule and all women will love even when they are not loved back. There is an identifiable pattern for both but it is not a hard and fast rule.
So while Genesis 3:16 is specifically about the first humans and their life outside the garden, in this verse there is a pattern that we can identify in a good portion of men and women. We can learn something from this pattern that may reveal our own heart and help us to understand our weaknesses and struggles but it would also be wrong to force an application onto every male and every female. It is not true that one cannot be male unless he has a propensity to rule the female. Nor is it true that one cannot be female unless she only desires the good welfare of her husband. All of us are a mixture in some way of our two original parents and all of us are capable of both good and bad.
So the bottom line is that anyone who seeks to lord it over others is following the example of Adam. Jesus said that this is not to be the attitude among us. It is not to be the attitude of males nor is it to be the attitude of females.
And the fact that Adam brought sin into the world is not an indictment on every male. It is not because he was male that he sinned in this way. It is because he, like satan, chose individually and willfully to sin in rebellion. And we have been stuck with his nature, except that through the last Adam we now have freedom to live as though we are dead to this sin nature so that we can live in union with Christ and exemplify his righteousness by our changed lives.
Lin,
You said:
While the sin nature comes through the line of Adam and through the male line, none of us can blame our bad behavior on our human parents. We are tainted through the sin line but we are responsible for our own sin.
There is only one who can free us from the vicious cycle of sin – both our own and the sin nature that we have through Adam. Jesus has given us a way out through the renewing of our minds. He alone is able to circumcise our hearts and remove that bent towards sin and as we live in Him we are growing more and more to become like Him. When we finally see Him, the process will be complete for we will be like Him for we will see Him as He is. Then the stain of sin will no longer have any hold on our lives.
Cheryl – “This is a false dilemma which is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t have to be a or b.”
You misunderstand. I am not saying that a and b are the only possibilities, I am saying they are the only possibilities I will accept as reasonable.
Cheryl – “Eve’s desire is not exclusive to Eve as men are to have this same desire and they are encouraged to “leave and cleave”.”
If you are saying that the good “desire” in Eve exists equally in men and women I am happy. Of course, it still means the bad “rule” in Adam exists equally in both as well.
Cheryl – “While it is relatively uncommon for women to be the abusers of men it is not unheard of.”
It depends on your definition of abuse. Physically, this is certainly true. But physical abuse is only one kind.
Cheryl – “But as our world shows, it is far more common for men to have this sin that manifests a stronghold in their lives because men are more apt to be aggressive and to want to control every situation.”
Absolutely untrue. Women are easily as controlling as men. Again, the difference is how each gender goes about accomplishing control. Just because men’s controlling actions are more visible due to the fact that they are outwardly physical does not mean they are more numerous.
Cheryl – “So while Genesis 3:16 is specifically about the first humans and their life outside the garden, in this verse there is a pattern that we can identify in a good portion of men and women.”
But you have managed to still see this “pattern” as biased in favor of wives. To you the pattern is that wives are generally virtuous and husbands are generally villianous. That is what I can not accept as valid.
gengwall,
Alright, then it appears that you have your own predefined limits of reasonable possibilities. What do you find unreasonable about my view or about other possibilities?
This does not follow. Now I do not know the hearts of other people so I can’t tell you what is in a person’s heart, but I can evaluate the outward actions. In country after country both Islamic and otherwise, men rule their women by both physical and psychological force. They do not allow them to be free people to chose their own way. I have read through a portion of several tractates in the Talmud and the “role” that women have for the most part is in the like sections of ownership of animals. It is undeniable that men have unrighteously taken a lordship rulership primarily over women but they are also doing the same thing to minorities and other men who do not fight back. Men excel in this sin and it isn’t until Christianity takes hold that the sin is held back in a large way. There are still issues with “Christian” hierarchists who want to keep the best portion of the God’s gifts for themselves alone, but it is also undeniable that when people come to Christ one of the areas that men are becoming sanctified is in the area of lordship over other human beings.
As far as what women’s sins are common to the female gender perhaps that is better expressed by those who are outside of our own blind spots. But I can tell you that I have met few women whose sin is in taking lordship over others. I have met more than my share of men who lives show this tendency in a strong way.
Usually one who is physically abusive is also verbally abusive, but women too can be verbally abusive.
What I was talking about mostly is illegal “lordship” or “rule” over another human being. Men in every generation have struggled with this sin and because their physical size gives them the advantage, they are the clear “winners” in this area.
In context I was talking about aggression and control. I realize that women have been known to manipulation rather than outright control.
Actually you are not able to refute what I say at all until you understand it. I have never said that women are “generally” virtuous or that husbands are “generally” villainous. I do not accept that bias rendering of my view as valid either.
So the question is still in the end, did Eve become a rebellious sinner after she left the garden of Eden? If she did, what proof does the Scriptures give for this rebellion? And if she did not become rebellious because she had the ability to remain without sin (unlike us), then for what reason would it be important that she remained without sin?
What say ye?
The reason that the sin nature had to be passed on to all (except for the seed of the woman) is because we were all to be shut up under sin so that salvation would come through faith and not by works.
The term “shut up” means:
It is the sin nature that “catches” us and imprisons us and makes every single one of us needy so that none of us can claim to be sinless and having “earned” salvation.
If some were able to be sinless of their own ability, then salvation would not be needed by all. God has in His providential will allowed all to be “shut up” in disobedience through the sin nature that came through Adam. When we are caught in that sin trap, we are able to understand that we need a Savior. And none of us is in a better boat because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The fact that the sin nature comes upon all of us leaves us without hope in the world, but able to seek for and find the Savior by His own drawing us to Himself.
The other thing that has not been answered by those who claim that there is no sin nature is the fact that even young babies can sin without ever being taught to sin. They do it naturally. Why is this? If there is no sin nature, then why do babies sin? These should be the completely innocent ones if there is no such thing as a sin nature.
I have yet to hear an explanation for babies telling lies that has made any sense. If this is how God made us, then how is this “good”? No, the fact is that God did make us perfect and without sin “in the beginning”. But sin came into the world. That changed everything.
Here is one more thing to throw at my readers. If there is no “old man” nature that comes through the line of Adam, then why was it absolutely necessary for Jesus to be virgin born? Thoughts?
Thanks again gengwall agreeing to move the discussion from this older post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/03/07/why-was-eve-punished/ to my post on the sin nature. It is easier for me to keep tract of and with over 400 hundred comments it is difficult for new readers to process through all of them.
Cheryl – we clearly aren’t understanding each other. You keep taking examples from human history but, it seems to me, are trying to read them back into our universal sin nature to say that sin itself is apportioned unequally between men and women. I do not question that in certain times and certain places men have acted worse than women. But I refuse to believe that the general effect of sin on human nature, specifically as it applies to marriage, is biased toward men. Therefore I feel that Gen 3:16 is making a universal statement about sin and humanity, not about what particular cultures may or may not do.
But maybe we are saying the same thing in different ways. My objection is to any interpretation that elevates women over men morally, just as you would strenuously object to the comp interpretation of the verse which elevates men over women.
Now – you asked: ” What do you find unreasonable about my view or about other possibilities?” If your view holds a bias against men or for women, it would be that bias that I find unreasonable. It would not only be unprecedented in scripture when God speaks and teaches about marriage, but it would not accurately reflect the equal impact of a sin nature on Adam’s sons as well as his daughters. I still see such a bias in your thought process. But I may be reading you wrong. A statement that woudl put my mind at ease would be something like “Gen 3:16 teaches that men and women have an equal propensity to engage in sinful actions that are directly harmful to their spouse”.
You further asked:
“So the question is still in the end, did Eve become a rebellious sinner after she left the garden of Eden?” – I don’t know, and at this point I don’t much care. As I said, I am open to a virtuous Eve as long as she doesn’t predict women as a more virtuous gender.
“If she did, what proof does the Scriptures give for this rebellion?” – If she did, my response would be “no more than it gives for Adam’s future rebellion.” We disagree sharply on addtional witnesses. Again, I don’t know if we are at the point in the discussion to resume that particular conversation.
“And if she did not become rebellious because she had the ability to remain without sin (unlike us), then for what reason would it be important that she remained without sin?” – I’m not following.
gengwall,
Well, I do know for sure that are not understanding me. I didn’t say that “sin is apportioned unequally between men and women. I said that
. It is one “nature” after all and so we have a capability of acting out if we choose to do so. It just so happens that what is in mankind cannot be seen from our heart since no one sees it. Looking at mankind throughout history gives us a fuller picture to comment on what appears in common from one nation to another and one time to another. We both see that.
I never said that. The general effect of sin on the human nature is that we all sin and no one gender is freer than the other of that sin.
Well if we could find those who think that women are elevated over men morally, then we both can “have at them”. I do not believe that women are morally better than men.
I don’t hold a bias against men. Do you hold a bias against women? Just because sin came through the man doesn’t mean that all men are worse than women. After all we are all children of Adam and it isn’t until we become children of the Lord Jesus that we take on a new nature.
By the way, are you one of the ones who disagrees that sin came through Adam and that we have a sin nature because of that or do you think that all of us were born in perfection without a sin nature?
I don’t believe that the silence of Adam at the fall is a teaching about marriage and neither is God’s curse on the earth a general teaching about marriage. I do find a general teaching on marriage in Genesis 2:24. I do not find Jesus or any of the other apostles using Genesis 3:16 as a general teaching on marriage so it must not be foundational to how to function in our God-ordained marriages.
You are reading me wrong.
How could I say this if what Eve did wasn’t sinful? However I do believe that men and women have an equal propensity to engage in sinful actions that are directly harmful to their spouse, although Genesis 3:16 doesn’t teach that. If one wants to make Eve as sinful and having harmful actions toward her spouse, then one would have to back it up by the Scriptures.
As I said Eve is unique. All of us are Adam’s children. Her seed alone is Jesus.
You haven’t answered my points but it appears to me that you may be taking this all personally and it isn’t Adam that you are defending but all men.
I am asking if there is any reason why her sinless nature would be necessary. Would her seed be touched by her sin if she had rebellion? If not, why not? Remember that there was only one seed of the woman, not seeds. Jesus is the only full offspring of the woman. If He could come through a sinful and rebellious Eve, then for what reason would it be necessary that He have no human father?
pinklight said on another post
This is a very good summary of Adam’s sin. He sinned in rebellion, but he covered over his sin, God prophesied that Adam would take dominion over Eve (rule over her) and Adam was kicked out of the garden to prevent him from reaching forth his hand and eating the fruit of the tree of life. It also was a sign that he had the ability and the propensity to continue his pattern of sin.
Good job!
gengwall,
On another post you said:
It isn’t an actual sin until it is committed, but by then it is too late. God will not allow one who has a sin nature to rebel again and then live forever in this state. Rebellion cannot exist forever since God has planned a day when it will end. God removing only one party from the tree of life is a witness to the potential of the nature that is in that person. In the original creation Adam and Eve were not removed from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They were just commanded not to eat or reach out for that fruit. They had the ability to obey. But now it is necessary not just to command Adam to not eat but to actually remove him. His removal shows that he could partake, if he were not physically kept from eating. Since God only did this to one person, there is a division between the nature of Eve and the nature of Adam. Only one was a threat that caused God to bring in protection.
Yes, this would have been a sin. The tree of life was no longer allowed to them as they must die. If they went against God’s command, it would have been sin.
The term “lest” is a prohibition. The Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (pg 678) says:
removing, taking away always in constr. (followed by Makkeph) it becomes a conj. of removing, prohibiting, hindering, lest. It is used—(1) where an action precedes, by which something is prohibited which we fear and wish removed. ..
(2) it stands at the beginning of a sentence, where—(a), it implies prohibition and dissuasion…(take heed) lest Hezekiah deceive you.”—(b) it implies fear, dread. Gen. 3:22, and now (for fear) lest he put forth his hand.”
The tree of life is now a prohibited fruit tree.
Lin,
On another post you said:
The Hebrew term means to exercise dominion over as ruler tyrant, fearful dominion. This type of rule is lording it over another human being and this was usurping the rule from God that He had over Eve. It is a sinful action by the definition of the word that God uses.
The term “for” as in longing for Adam is the term where the turning comes from. This places the longing toward the husband:
The sources that I checked all say that the word means longing, desire or craving.
Nothing says that this is a bad choice that she should remained glued to her husband in marriage and have his children.
Lin,
On the past post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/03/07/why-was-eve-punished/comment-page-4 that we are now answering here on the issue of sin here, you said:
Interesting that I see Paula’s thinking in your comment. Did this come from Paula? Is so, she is welcome to come here and challenge me herself if she thinks I am wrong.
Now let’s look at the problems with what has been written.
This is not what is claimed. God said that Adam will rule over his wife. His nature is not to rule – his nature is to sin. One of the ways that he would sin would be to take an unauthorized rule over the woman. There has been no claim that he will take that rule over every woman.
Adam’s sin nature does not mean that the person will commit every act of sin. It is a propensity to sin, not a propensity to do one particular sin just like Adam did.
This is not the claim. This is the correct claim – All who have a human father are prone to sin.
This is just plain wrong and nothing like what I have claimed. Let’s not let Paula misrepresent my view. All women and men who have Adam as their ancestral father are prone to sin because they all inherit his sin nature. They don’t all inherit his way of ruling.
I recognize this as Paula’s writing. And usually Paula is wonderful in her logic as she is a very smart woman. She is very wrong on this one and she has claimed an invalid argument on my part. Perhaps she would like to come here herself to argue her point. That would be the logical and respectful thing to do if her argument has validity.
I am not claiming that women are sinless. I am claiming that all (including all women) are to be “shut up under sin” as the Scripture teaches. And I submit that Scripture states that the Messiah had to come only through the woman’s seed. If you disagree with this (and since biology cannot identify the sin nature gene) I would like to ask you why the Messiah had to come from the woman’s seed alone?
Here is my claim http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/
Apparently Paula has not paid much attention to the post I keep linking to or she would not have made this statement. Females all inherit sin except for the first woman Eve who did not inherit Adam’s sin. It is only through her seed that the Messiah can come.
Again I am assuming that this came from Paula. Scripture never says that the fall came through Eve or that sin came into the world through Eve. While she had great heartache because of the fall, she is never blamed. If we blame her, then we are doing so inappropriately for it was to be through the seed of the first woman that we could have salvation.
Lin,
I would really encourage you to leave Paula’s writing for her to present here if she would like. I am not sure why she would not come here herself to defend her own view. If she believes that she was created perfect and that she can stop from sinning because she has no sin nature, then she can come here and present her view.
Lin, thanks for always being willing to argue in a passionate way with grace and respect. It is very much appreciated on this blog.
Cheryl, I have been known to use syllogisms before. Perhaps not here? In any event, I am teaching them to my daughter right now and this one was too good to pass up.
I find this last comment from you below the belt and unnecessary. I think it is best I bow out.
Lin,
I didn’t mean to offend you at all. I think we both know that Paula has taken an opportunity to mock me on her blog. If you think this is fair and respectful then so be it. I think that she should come here and hash out this issue herself. Do you agree with me? If you don’t then I’m sorry. Those who want to argue passionately should be willing to defend their view instead of resorting to taking shots behind someone’s back. I prefer not to handle disagreements like that. Let’s be men and women of God and handle this fairly and with respect. That is all I am asking for.
Cheryl, I am at a loss of how you could think your comment was not personally offensive. I learned syllogisms in my 4 years of taking University Logic classes. I think they can be helpful when a topic becomes so detailed and confusing. It could be the premise is wrong and leads us to a wrong conclusion. But then, they do not work well when you continue to ‘change’ your views on certain points.
Such as this one:
“This is not what is claimed. God said that Adam will rule over his wife. His nature is not to rule – his nature is to sin.”
You have been claiming that men have a sin nature to ‘rule’. I think that is verifiable on the last thread. It could be that your view is being refined as you think this through.
I have not read Paula’s blog today so not sure exactly what you are talking about. Guess I should check it out. If she gives an opposing view, why would you consider that mocking? Do you consider my comments here mocking you? If you think that, you are very wrong. I simply disagree with you.
I have no wish to engage on this sort of personal attack level.
Questions going through my mind-
Where did Jesus get his humanity (perfect humanity/perfect nature) from? Are we born perfect or not born perfect? Were Adam and Eve made perfect or not?
More questions-
So if Eve had rebelled (assuming she did and her seed was tainted then) where then did Jesus get his perfect nature from since Mary did not have a perfect nature? Or did she have a perfect nature and we do too? If Jesus didn’t get it from Mary’s seed alone, then how can he be linked back to us (Adam & Eve) and be our Redeemer? If we have a perfect nature and Mary did too, then why do we need Jesus? Why did a perfect man (his flesh) have to die if we are born perfect and we can stop ourselves from sinning and rebelling? Couldn’t any one of us then choose to never sin and therefore be perfect like Jesus was?
Can this be said about Jesus? Or was he different from us because of the woman’s seed that wasn’t tainted?
Why must we die if it weren’t for us inheriting it from Adam? Why do we inherit death from Adam when he was the one who sinned? There must be a reason.
Lin,
I haven’t changed my views. It seems like you have misunderstood. My focus is on Adam’s sin nature. His sin nature has come out in several ways – hiding his sin, rule over his wife and the need to protect the tree of life from the rebellion of Adam. Patriarchy is an outflowing of the sin nature in a desire to rule over women as well as other men. Patriarchy has been established since Adam’s day until our day in many cultures, in many lands and over a long period of time. Men and women have followed Adam’s way of sin during those years to in many different ways but the one way that God warns the woman about happens to be the most consistent sin with men. When Christianity comes into a culture, a change starts that gives respect, honor and freedom for women to serve God.
So ruling is not the sin nature, but the sin nature can consist of an ungodly rule along with other sins.
I do not consider people who come to my blog and engage me even if they disagree with me in a passionate way as mocking me. I invite dialog and as I said before I consider your questions as respectful. But I have had a dialog on the other blog some time back and I asked some hard questions – things that others ask here all the time and the post got shut down and no answers were given to my questions. I have no problems in inviting Paula or any others who disagree to disagree to my face. But doing things behind someone’s back is usually considered disrespectful at the very least.
That is my stand and I think it is more than tolerant for debate and dialog because it is my aim for my own blog to remain respectful and fair. I have no problem with you on my blog. You are upfront with your disagreements and you have a right to express your point of view with all the passion that you have.
Here is my concern. I do not want anyone unwittingly to be a “mouthpiece” for someone else who is unwilling to dialog here. I very rarely feel disrespected on my own blog and I tolerate a lot especially when the strong comps have shown up here from time to time. But I can feel highly disrespected when people take their disagreements with me behind my back without bothering to dialog with me first and especially when dialog has been shut down by the same person over the same subject in the past.
Okay, ‘Nuff said.
pinklight,
Excellent questions once again! You asked:
Jesus is the promised “seed of the woman” so Jesus got his perfect humanity from Eve.
None of us is born perfect. We are subject to death even during the time before we are born because of the fall of Adam. And we have a nature that has a difficult time not sinning although we can not sin for a time and we can hold back on the extent of our sin, but our own thought life should tell us how much of a sin nature that we truly have.
Adam and Eve were made perfect in the beginning. They had the ability to choose to sin but they also had the
pinklight,
Jesus had to inherit his perfect human nature from Eve since she was the only person on the earth who had no rebellion in their nature. If Eve had sinned in rebellion she would not be qualified to be the mother of the “seed”. God couldn’t just create another perfect woman from the dirt because the Messiah had to be the “kinsman Redeemer” which is someone who is related to us by blood but who is also able to purchase us. If Jesus had any spot or wrinkle he could not be the perfect sinless lamb who was given for the sins of the world.
No, Mary did not have a perfect nature and neither do we. Mary did not have to be sinless to carry the Messiah since all that was needed was the “seed of the woman”. Eve’s seed passed along through the generations was never tainted with sin. As long as there was no human father there was no possibility that the human Jesus would be tainted with a sin nature. He was born perfect just like the first Adam and even though He was tempted, He was able to choose not to sin.
If the seed of the man was used, the human Jesus would be tainted, but the Kinsman Redeemer needed to be a descendant of Adam. The only way that He could be a descendant of Adam but without an “old man” nature, would be to come through the seed of the woman alone.
Good question! Why would we need Jesus? And if any of us are perfect then we could work our way to God because we are in perfection already. But we are in need of a Savior because we are sinful and we have been that way since we were conceived with the seed of the man.
These are questions that need to be answered by those who believe that they do not have a sin nature. I sure wish I had the answers because I would like to see how they would get the answers from God’s word.
pinklight:
The term “of flesh” is one of the Biblical terms for the “old man” nature. No, Jesus was never “of flesh” or “sold into bondage to sin” because he was “the seed of the woman” born without any kind of sin.
It is for this reason:
In the wisdom of God, He decided that all would be “shut up” under sin so that we all would be in the position of needing a Savior. He was not going to play favorites so that none would be created perfect and thus never sin and not need a Savior. By the fall happenting exactly the way it happened, we all were “in” Adam when he sinned so that all were “shut up” under sin and all need a Savior. This was done so that God could give life in Christ to any who would believe. Eternal life isn’t given by being created perfect and working to stay that way. God’s plan is that He would bring people into heaven only by faith so universal sin had to happen so that God’s choice would be set up as the plan of salvation.
Why do we die?
Hopefully death/dying reminds us of our nature which is passing away.
Hi Cheryl,
I appreciate your attempt to defend the doctrine of original sin. I agree wholeheartedly here with you. However there were a few things i thought you might like to flesh out a little for me.
You said “God never prophesied that Eve might rebel and eat from the tree of life after the fall because Eve still had the ability to not sin.”
I wonder how you hadle texts such as these with your theology…
Eph 2 “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. “
1 John 3:4 “sin is lawlessness”
I’m not convinced that the bible ever gives the indication that any single person has ever had the capacity to ‘not sin’ after the fall, even Eve. What texts support the idea that Eve was able to not sin after her original sin. Please cite your texts
You said “ That error that has been taught by many is the doctrine that Adam’s offspring are charged by God with Adam’s sin. The Bible lays this error to rest by stating that the son will not bear the punishment for the father’s sin.” You then quote Eze 18.
Now this may simply be terminology issues. I agree that no-one is responsible for another’s sin, Adams or otherwise. But are you saying that children do not suffer the punishment for the sins of their parents (on earth i mean, not eternally). If so, how do you understand these texts…
2 Kings 23: 25-27 “Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him.26 Still the LORD did not turn from the burning of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him. 27 And the LORD said, “I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”
Here Judah is punished for the apostasy of an earlier king Manasseh. The effects of the sin of the king result in the destruction of Jerusalem, regardless of Josiah’s reforms. Also…
Numbers 13:18 “The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
Here quite plainly the children are punished to the third and forth generation. Can you clarify your position?
Also you said “since Christ is able to remove not just the sin of one man, but the transgressions of the many (Romans 5:16). The passage is an extremely important apologetic passage for the universality of Christ’s sacrifice”
Again maybe this is just terminology, but are you promoting a doctrine of ‘universalism’, namely that all people are saved and none perish in hell?
Thanks
Also one other point.
Where does the incarnation come into play in your theology. You seem to state very strongly that Eve did not have a rebellious sin nature because this was neccesary for Jesus to also not have a sin nature.( through the virgin birth with no corrupted father) But where does the fact come in that Jesus is God, and that in God there is no sin. To me he is sinless (or without a sin nature) precisely because he is fully God and he is fully human because he is born of woman (since only women can bear children)
I can’t help but wonder if you are pushing your Gen 1-3 theology into the incarnation and corrupting it.
I just wanted to remind people that this blog is open for questions and for challenges from those who agree with me and those who disagree with me. I believe that as Christians we can dialog with grace even when we don’t always agree.
I am going to be really open right now regarding something that I don’t tolerate well and something that hurts me deeply. Quite a while ago I was on an egalitarians blog where there was a discussion on original sin and I commented and asked questions regarding a view that is opposite to mine. My questions were not answered and when I asked if my questions were going to be addressed the egalitarian host got mad and the comments were shut down. Now she has created a post on the same subject and has no problems making fun of my view on original sin and allowing others to do the same.
The question I would like to ask, is this the best way to handle disagreements on doctrinal issues? Since I am very open to being challenged and have yet to shut down the comments on my blog, why not come here and discuss it? I will no longer go to that blog to comment because the attitude that shuts down the opposition’s questions by shutting down the comments does not sit well with me. I have a far different philosophy. If I have the right position then I can accept a challenge and I can answer back without mocking the other person. A challenge does not weaken my position, it merely strengthens it because it causes me to work on finding ways that will answer the questions in the way that someone who is not in my head can also understand why I believe as I do.
If I am wrong I will never shut down the comments but I will be open to see where I am wrong and I will turn away from my error. I have this attitude because I understand that none of us is perfect and we all can have blind spots that can cause us to believe something that is not true. It is a win-win situation when someone can dialog/debate/passionately discuss these matters with me and work to convince me that I am wrong. I intend to do the same with them in as gentle a way as I can, and in the end even if we do not agree, we at least can have a clear understanding of why we believe as they do and why we cannot accept the opposing view.
But if our purpose is to put people down for their views and make fun of them personally this comes across as a position of weakness instead of a position of truth because the truth seeks to educate and encourage. Mocking and belittling a person comes across as a superior attitude. While this may draw people who like this attitude, I highly doubt that the attitude would be tolerated if they themselves were the subject of the ridicule. They would be greatly offended, I am sure. I was not offended so much as I was deeply hurt. I am human after all and I have feelings.
So if anyone wonders why I allow debate here and why I allow people to challenge me. It is because I believe it is a win-win situation. Truth is worthy of being challenged and it will stand. What isn’t truth should be challenged and we can all learn from it. And what is corrected and challenged with a Christ-like spirit will be heard.
It is my desire to give out my own correction to others in this same spirit. For I know that my Lord Jesus watches all that I do and what I do with a wrong spirit hurts Him. When I act in a loving, respectful way even to those who do not treat me this way, I am sharing the nature of the Lord who desires all of us to be conformed to His image.
Okay, I believe this needed to be said because the issue of challenges to my belief in original sin came up. I will no longer comment about this matter of what is written about me on this other blog. If anyone wishes to make a comment I will allow it, but I am moving on. I don’t want to dwell on things that hurt me, discourage me and pull me down. There is too much positive that can encourage others for me to focus on these negative things any longer. I will certainly accept the one challenging me to come here and pose questions and I will answer.
Okay, I’ll get to the questions posed to me shortly.
Mark,
You said:
I take this as a kind word from you and it feels really good to have someone speaking out in agreement. Thank you, Mark for taking the time to let me know that you are agree with me.
In regard to the Ephesians 2 verse, this is talking about the children of Adam as “by nature” children of wrath. This is exactly what I have been talking about – the nature of the “old man”. But this cannot be used for Eve since she did not inherit Adam’s nature.
Regarding 1 John 3:4, sin is lawlessness but God Himself has defined two ways to come into this “lawlessness”. There is unintentional sin that can come through deception and there is defiant sin which is done with full knowledge of the truth of sin. The Bible lists Eve in the category as one who fell into sin through deception. She is never even once listed as one who was in rebellion while Adam is placed in that category.
As I read the Scriptures I see that so often God places opposites together to give a message of God’s way and man’s way. For example there is Sarah’s child and Hagar’s child. There is Jacob and Essau. Then there is Adam and Eve. One brought a curse on the earth and the other saw the deception that they had fallen into and accepted God’s promise to punish the one who had deceived her.
Actually I am not claiming that Eve did not have the capacity to ‘not sin’ after the fall. In fact she had the capacity to sin before the fall just as Adam did. What I am claiming is that she had the capacity to not sin before the fall and after the fall since she did not sin in rebellion. I am also claiming that while Adam had the capacity not to sin before the fall, he became a sinner with a sin nature after the fall and he became a slave to sin. Do you see the difference between what I am saying and what you thought I said?
Along that line I have said that for Eve to have a rebellious sin nature after the fall would require a witness of Scripture to this sin nature. I am not claiming that she could not sin, but I am claiming that for Eve to sin she would either have to be deceived into sin or she would have to sin in rebellion. There is no indication that she sinned in rebellion after the fall. And as far as being deceived again this seems unlikely. First of all she now had her eyes opened to the deceiver. Secondly the deceiver was condemned by his original deception of Eve. How was he going to deceive her again? I also see no evidence of this. I believe that a person created perfect without a sin nature can live a sinless life. Jesus did. Since Eve did not inherit Adam’s nature, why could she not continue to live a life without rebellion? Without a charge of rebellion against her, I have to consider her innocent until proven guilty. I would ask, what do you believe to be evidence of her rebellion?
First off my discussion had been that the Father’s sin’s would not be placed on the account of the son so that we are not punished for our Father’s sin. Having said that I will deal with the passages you brought up.
In the passage of 2 Kings 23, God is showing that even though there is a good king in the land, and this good king forcefully destroys all the idols, the mediums, the spirtists and all of the other abdominations including the places where the Jews were burning their children to Baal, if there is no turning from evil from the people, even a good king cannot save Judah. There is a price to pay for the evil that they have done and the forced cleansing of the evil from a good king will not stop God’s anger against the people.
It is the people who did the evil. Even though they had been encouraged by an evil king who set up much of the apostacy, it was the people who followed the evil with their whole heart. God wasn’t punishing repentant people. And God wasn’t punishing innocent people for the sins of their fathers. Let’s see that:
It was the 18th year of the reign of King Josiah when the scroll of the law was found. When King Josiah found out what was written in this law he was humble before the Lord and tore his clothes and wept before the Lord at the evil that had been exposed. It was then that he went out and destroyed all the idols and the places of evil that had been set up and where the people were doing what was evil in the eyes of the Lord. For this God promised that he would not see the punishment that God would bring to the people:
So this good king would not live to see the punishment but the people who did the wrong doing would be punished. This was in the 18th year of Josiah and he reigned for 31 years so it was only 13 years later that Josiah died. Then evil reigned again and the people did not obey God. While the original evil was to be punished from the evil that a former king instituted, it was the people who followed and did the evil and they did not repent nor were their hearts softened to God as Josiah’s heart was during his reign of good. We do not find “innocent” and “repentant” people being punished for the sins of their fathers.
I will continue answering in the next comment.
Mark,
You asked:
I think you mean Numbers 14:18. In that verse God says that he “will by no means clear the guilty” what comes after that is to be interpreted by the disclaimed. These are not innocent children who are punished for their fathers sins, but succeeding generations who have been taught to hate God and despise His word. We can see this clearly by the parallel passage in Exodus.
Do you see that God punishes those who hate Him, but to those who love Him and keep His commandments He does not punish but shows them lovingkindness?
God is a fair and loving God who does not punish the children for their parent’s sins, but he does punish those who hate Him even if that hatred has been taught and passed on from preceding generations. But when a people turn from this hatred and honor God He will not punish them, but love them and show them kindness.
No, this is not the heresy of universalism. All those who hate God and reject His word will go to hell.
In the Scriptures there is always a two part application of the removal of sins. There is the sacrifice which is perfect and complete and there is the application of the blood. For example at the passover the death of the lamb was enough to universally cover all the people within the house but the death of the lamb alone while it was a perfect sacrifice had to be applied by faith. So if the Israelites killed the lamb and ate it as was required by God, even though the sacrifice had been done on their behalf and even though it was a perfect sacrifice, God required the blood to be applied by faith. It was not a work but a response to God’s work. In every sacrifice for sin there is always two parts because the blood always had to be applied. This is where universalism fails. They believe that the death of the perfect sacrifice will be enough to apply the benefit that had been purchased, on their behalf. But the purchased benefit will never be put onto their account without faith. God kept all under sin universally so that only by faith would anyone enter the kingdom. Universalists believe that the fact that Christ died for all means that all are saved, but they fail to see that the application of the sacrifice by faith is required for all and it cannot be disregarded because God in His wisdom set it up this way. We either go in God’s way or we don’t go in at all.
I am going to leave the question about the incarnation until I have more time to answer. I have to go now and get other things done, but I will answer the next question because it is a very important and valuable questions that applies to this subject.
Mark,
You asked:
Thanks for the questions! Jesus had two natures one as God and one as man. His nature as God came from His being God from eternity past. His nature as man came through Mary.
If Jesus as a human could be sinless because He was God then He wouldn’t be just like us. And if being God is what made Him sinless then why couldn’t He have a human father? Why must He have been born from a virgin without the possibility of a human father? This is where the incarnation comes into play with Him being fully God and fully man but without sin.
The reason why Adam and Eve were without sin in the beginning is that they were created that way by God. But since God requires a perfect sacrifice for us as the Kinsman Redeemer, the man Jesus had to take on our flesh – the flesh that came from Adam. If you make Jesus the man sinless because He is God, then that takes away His connection with us. Then He is different than us in his humanity because He has been somehow cleansed of the sin nature which we are not cleansed from. But if as I state that the sin nature comes into our world only through the man, then the virgin birth removes any barrier that would stop Jesus from being like us. He is our Kinsman Redeemer back through the lineage of Eve who came from Adam before he sinned. It gives Jesus a “natural” human existence as a sinless man just like the way that Adam was created sinfree.
The challenge to those who believe that the virgin birth was not necessary to have Jesus be a sinless human is to answer why God demanded the sign of a virgin and why He rejected a human father for Jesus. I believe that the Messiah coming through the seed of the woman which has not been tainted with the sin of rebellion assures that the Messiah will not have a sin nature. For if we believe that the sin nature comes through Adam, why should it be hard to believe that there is no rebellion that comes through the seed of the woman?
It was God who said that the seed of the woman would defeat the serpent. There is no corruption in this seed and God gives us no understanding that God would have to do something special to cleanse the seed. The woman had no rebellion to produce rebellion in her seed. If I am wrong, then all it would take is a Scripture or two that states that sin comes into the world through two or that Eve was in rebellion or anything along that line.
truthseeker,
On the other post about Eve you asked:
Adam hid his sin which was a continuation of the sin pattern:
Adam is also predicted to sin against his wife by ruling over her. In Genesis 3:22 God stops only one future sin from taking place and that would be the sin of Adam eating from what is now forbidden. This verse is very monumental as it is the first time that God forbids something that was given freely before and it is forbidden because of the need to stop a sin from taking place.
How do you explain only one man hiding his sin? How do you explain only one man looked on as one who could again sin with knowledge? I see Adam’s continued sin in three ways. Do you see an innocence or do you see something that has changed in the man? God didn’t have to set a guard on the tree knowledge of good and evil in the beginning. Why does God have to set a guard to the garden now? What has changed?
truthseeker,
You said:
The Bible doesn’t say that Eve “tempted” Adam. In fact this is an old way of blaming the woman for his sin that many saw in the account. But it isn’t true. Eve offered the fruit to Adam and she wasn’t accused of being a temptress. God didn’t say to Eve, because you offered the fruit to Adam, cursed is…. Offering a piece of fruit was not a sin to her since she was fully deceived and he was not.
There were two instances of what God said were sin and another stated by God in the book of Job that I quoted above (hiding his sin) another by God when He told Eve what Adam would do to her outside the garden and the very strong possibility of Adam’s future sin which would have been devastating to God. I think that all of these is a good sign of a new nature.
We have already have enough documentation for a “two or three witnesses” pattern to prove Adam’s continued sin. There is no witness of Eve’s sin after she was deceived. But on top of this is the fact that Adam (and Adam alone) is said to have brought sin into the world. What sin did he bring into the world?
If Adam still had his perfect nature he would not have had to sin at all after the first episode if he didn’t have a different nature. After all in all the time that he existed before the fall he didn’t sin even once. Now all of a sudden within a short period of time he sins 4 times. Why? And now Adam is said to have brought sin into the world.
The next thing that is really important is to note that Lucifer only sinned in rebellion once before his nature was changed. It is the kind of sin that is most important. Adam’s sin was the sin of rebellion.
Eve blamed the one who was to blame. That wasn’t a sin. And God knew that the serpent was to blame so he cursed him for doing what he did to Eve. But Adam blamed the one who was not to blame. That is the difference. God did not accept Adam’s excuse and God did not blame the woman for Adam’s sin.
The new testament makes it clear that we all have an “old man” nature. Where did this come from? How could we have this “old man” nature and Adam be free from this nature? I would be interested to know where you think this nature comes from and if it is “natural” and God created us to sin so easily why would He say that what He created was good? Does God consider the “old man” nature as good?
truthseeker,
You said:
It is actually “toward” and this is where the “turning” comes from.
The focus of her longing is toward her husband. If one sees Eve as left in the garden and Adam as the one kicked out, her one-flesh union with him would manifest in a longing toward him. It is the turning toward her husband that comes from this word alone. Longing for and cleaving for one’s husband is not a sin and as I said on another post, God gave them the mandate to fill the earth. That mandate was not rescinded because of the fall. It was not a sin for Eve to be with her husband and God never accused her of sinning nor did He force a divorce on her. She was free to be with her husband to continue God’s mandate.
Lin,
This is because ‘desire’ is not a good translation and takes us into all kinds of error and problems on both sides of egal/comp. God warned Eve that she would turn to her husband and he, in return, would rule over her. Even though history of the translation of teshuqa is there for anyone to see, people still defend ‘desire’ as appropriate. I think it causes a lot of interpretation problems.
You said:
“Longing” is a very good translation and I have not found a single lexicon that translates the word as “turning”. I do agree that turning is in the text but it comes from the word “toward” as seen in the above example that I copied.
The reaction was shame. This is always what follows when one sins. But shame is not the same thing as covering one’s sin like what Adam did when he blamed his deceived wife.
I think that we have a view of Eve as if she was a sinner like us. While we can sin by looking to our husbands as if they were mediators between us and God, the Scripture nowhere attributes Eve’s longing for Adam and turning to him as a sin. If I have missed something, I stand to be corrected. But where is the correction from the Scripture? It won’t be from what we “feel” the text says but what does the Scripture say in the text that makes Eve’s future actions as a sin?
While I agree that God warned her what life would be like with her sinful husband, how can we say that God warned her not to turn to Adam? The Scripture doesn’t say Eve don’t do that. Where does the text say that God warned Eve not to do this action?
God is Sovereign, but He always used humans to populate the earth, not recreations of the first man from the dirt. And yes Noah ended up drunk and naked. He too had an “old man” nature.
The effects of the fall were horrible. However God has always blamed only Adam. No one here is watering down the acts of Adam. Is charging Eve with sin when God didn’t charge her with additional sin something that is watering down the effects of the fall? I don’t see how.
gengwall,
You said:
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Are you saying that after Adam sinned at the fall with the two things that God charged him with and after God kicked him out of the garden so that he could not rebel and take of the tree of life, that Adam could have not sinned at all for the rest of his life? That he was actually no different than before he sinned? If this is so, can you explain the change in Lucifer was being perfect to the place where he has no truth in him at all and he is the father of lies? Was Lucifer (now satan) no different than Adam in that he could have chosen to not sin not to ever sin again even after he fell?
Lin,
You asked:
The concept of turning is in the passage of Genesis 3:16 although the Septuagint translates it as “turning back” See below:
This is also the way it translates Genesis 4:7 but does this make sense? Sin is “turning back” to you?
pinklight,
You asked:
We die because we are under the sentence of Adam because of sin and we do not have access to the fruit of the tree of life. What I really praise God for is that some day we will be back to paradise with God and back to the tree of life and we WILL life forever – those of us who have faith in God.
I received an email from a friend who was interested in dialogging on the issue of sin but didn’t want to post on the blog so I am going to address their concerns/questions to me here for everyone to read but to keep them anonymous.
It isn’t “males” that brought sin into the world but one person. That one person didn’t have a sole kingship that made them responsible. In fact I am sure that if it was Eve who had sinned in rebellion she would have been charged with bringing sin into the world. This is not a male/female issue but about one sinner.
This is one of the ways that some have understood original sin, but this is not Biblical. Adam’s sin did not become ours. The correct translation is “because”. Here is the difference. We didn’t sin “in Adam” as if we participated in his sin. We were “in Adam” when he sinned so that the consequences of his rebellion would be felt by those who had yet to be born. We experienced the results of the poison and our DNA was changed from perfect to disposed toward sin.
I have a problem with that too and this is not what I believe. We don’t inherit “sin”. We are sinless when we are born. But we have a bent towards sin although we have not committed any sin. Do you see the difference? I too have read from those who believe that we inherit Adam’s sin and this cannot be because God has clearly said that He does not punish the son for the father’s sin.
My friend, let me say it this way. If Jesus was born with the same nature as the rest of mankind, then He couldn’t be the Savior. He had a different nature (sinless) but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t human. It was the exact same nature as we were created to have. It was the same as the first Adam and thus Jesus is rightly called the “last Adam”. Jesus and Adam are compared in Scripture and both became human without sin. Adam changed that by rebelling, but Jesus fulfilled all righteousness without a single sin. It was the same beginning but different ending. We couldn’t say that a man who had Adam’s nature at the beginning (sinless) he couldn’t pay for our sins. I say that he had to have the original nature that God made mankind to be or we would have been left in our sins.
Well, Adam the perfect man couldn’t heal us. In fact the Scripture says that no man can ransom another for the price is too great. But because Jesus was man AND God, as God He could heal us and as the God-man he could pay for our sins in full.
His walk was not fundamentally different than Adam’s. In fact his walk was the exact same as Adam’s in the beginning. His walk was vastly different from Adam’s after Adam sinned.
This is where Jesus was different than Adam’s end. Jesus never gave in to temptation and His temptations were “in every way just as we are” while Adam was tempted to rebel in only one thing. So Jesus was far greater than Adam and He understands all of our weaknesses.
We will be condemned for turning away God’s antidote to our sin. While we may not be able to do much about living perfectly without sin, we can accept God’s revealed word and have faith in Him. It is for rejecting God that people go to hell in the first place. And secondly we go to hell for sinning in things that we do have control of. While we cannot always control our thoughts we can control our actions. Those who commit adultery and then say that they couldn’t help themselves as they are not guilty because they had no control are simply in error.
God has placed us all under sin so that we would all be in a position to have faith in Him instead of earning our way to God. Some may say that He should not have done it this way, but it is fair that all of need God and need a Savior and if we look to Him in faith, we will receive salvation and that is fair.
I do not agree with the “Federal headship” of Adam and that we are guilty for Adam’s sin. One pastor told me that his wife had a couple of miscarriages and that he didn’t know if those unborn babies were in hell. When I balked at this statement and told him that unborn babies could not commit sin, he stated that they were guilty of sin in Adam and that if they went to hell they deserved it. Honestly I was appalled. This is not Biblical teaching. Unborn babies do not have “Adam’s sin”. They are innocent of sin and God condemns no man or baby for Adam’s sin.
I think that the error that has been taught in the name of original sin has tainted the doctrine that we have an “old man” nature that we inherited from the man who brought sin into the world. We don’t inherit sin. We inherit a sin nature. If we don’t understand that so many Bible verses don’t make sense for the “flesh” is talked about as sinful and needs to be put to death.
If there are any others who would like their questions/comments placed here but don’t want to go on the record, I don’t mind at all. Just send your questions to me and I will make sure that they are placed here anonymously.
This is such a huge topic for many people. It is important for us to think these things through Biblically as well as to reject the bad arguments of the past.
gengwall,
You said:
Nope. Honestly I hear your own pain in this. It seems to me that you think that just because you are a male that egalitarians (and me?) look on you as a male, receiving only evil from Adam’s nature and we women are perfect and unaffected by sin. I don’t know where your reset button is, but if I could find it I would likely push it to clear out the bad thoughts. I am not against you and I don’t know anyone here who is against you. And I will say it once more….our father Adam brought sin into the world and all of us are influenced by a nature that causes us to rebel.
And the biggest reset button is our Lord Jesus. He is able to change us into His image. Now men don’t get more of the image of Jesus than women do or vice-versa. We all share the same human first father and we as Christians will all share in the same Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
Oh my goodness, I hope so. That was a terribly unfair rendering.
I don’t have any problem with this.
Oh, I see the problem. You think that because God says something that He is proposing it. But that is not the case. God is saying what Eve will do and He is telling Eve what her husband will do.
Notice two things here. He isn’t telling her that any of this is what He wants. He is predicting their human wills.
Secondly notice that He doesn’t tell Adam what he will do. Why? Because Adam doesn’t need to be warned about something that he can’t control. So what is this all about? It is about two people who are one in flesh in their marriage union dealing with a bad situation out of the garden. What has this got to do with the good things that are set up for all marriages?
Do you mean why would God predict Adam’s bad behavior to Eve? Because she has the option of whether to leave the garden or not. He isn’t forcing her out. It isn’t going to be a rose garden out there with the sin cursed earth and the one who brought sin into the world. Is God predicting that all men will rule women? Whether this is something that a lot of men do or not doesn’t mean that God is telling Eve that this is what her sons are going to do to her. God is specifically talking to one person (Eve) and telling her about her own husband.
I think people have taken Genesis 3:16 far beyond the prediction that God made. Now if God had said to Eve that Adam and all her sons will rule her, then that would have been a double warning for her and a predictor about all men. But is God actually telling Eve that all men will rule her?
So it seems like you have a package deal that would fall to pieces if Eve was not sinful. I don’t know, my friend, but if I had to make a woman sinful without a second witness, I think I would drop my package deal on Genesis 3:16. For if for you to be right, you have to make her sinful, then your desire to be right is going to be a stumbling block to see anything other than what you want to see in the passage.
It isn’t just a conjunction, it is a coordinating conjunction.
..therefore the connection between the parts is established and it isn’t just a list of unrelated events.
to continue with gengwall’s comments:
I have not yet found a single Hebrew lexicon that lists “turning” as a viable option. It is in the text but just not for the for this word. But I do agree that the context will determine the meaning. We agree here.
I agree that when there are antagonists that there is can be the meaning of against for the preposition.
But Adam’s antagonism cannot be considered. I am not at all suggesting that Adam is not antagonistic toward Eve, but you cannot change the subject around. A woman who has a sin nature would certainly be antagonistic toward Adam but you cannot make Eve into a sinner by suggesting that she cannot help but sin. There must be something else to make this an absolute. Also notice something that is against your position. Eve’s desire is listed first and the coordinating conjunction is in the direction from longing to rule. If God wanted to tell us that Eve would respond to Adam’s rule with antagonism, then God would have placed Adam’s rule first and then Eve’s desire after that as a result of his rule. But with the order that it is written, her desire cannot be taken as a result of his rule, but something that is there first.
We both agree the Hebrew word for rule means a lording it, or mastery of another person and that is sinful. What we both agree that the word used for Eve is not necessarily a negative word. God cannot be made to say that Eve is sinful no matter how hard you try. The word order is wrong, it is a coordinating conjunction, not just a conjunction listing unrelated words in unrelated order. And God is not saying that Eve “sinned” a second time. If she was a rebellious sinner she would also have been kicked out of the garden.
I think that you need to work harder to get a second witness for God’s word with the inspired words, the inspired grammar and the exact word order (not the rearranging of cause and effect as you have made in the passage) cannot be used as a witness against Eve. I am open to hearing a valid witness to “longing” as a bad thing. But so far you haven’t presented anything that would hold up in court. And I am unwilling to attach sin onto the woman without a Biblical charge of sin that will hold up to the required two or three witnesses. I do not want to meet Eve in heaven and tell her that I charged her with sin because it made my thoughts on marriage fit. That may be a good reason to believe it, but it isn’t good enough in my opinion. Like I said, I could be wrong , but I would like to see the evidence that I am wrong.
And what disrespectful “turning” against my husband are you charging me with? I would like to see the evidence you have against all women.
Yes, please do tell us what the flaws are from Genesis 3 that God is charging against all women. I would be interested to hear it. I would also like to know if you have a second witness to this “flaw” or if Genesis 3:16 is the lone charge against all wives?
Well, this has certainly turned out to be an interesting discussion. Certainly passionate and thought-provoking and I think has pushed us into the passage deeper than even I thought to go. Good going!
I’m noting this as I’m learning…:
Interesting. Why would we be called “children of wrath” out of all things if we are born perfect – children of perfection with only the ability to chose to sin?
Did the fall happen once? Or does it happen everyday when someone sins? Or do we really never fall because we can go back to being perfect after we once choose to sin, by deciding to choose to sin no more?
Thanks. Making notes ;P
For those who have asked me privately, I will clarify. I haven’t read the article that was written about my view. I wasn’t sent the article nor was I consulted about it as I consulted complementarians that I wrote about. In fact I asked permission of CBMW and gave what quotes I was going to use to their publisher. I also contacted John MacArthur’s organization and spoke to his right hand man personally and sent him a list of the quotes I was going to use. I treated them with respect as brothers in Christ.
My concern about mocking was in the comments made about me in the comment section. That is the only thing that I have seen. I was misrepresented and mocked and those who treat their “friends” this way should consider if this is how they would like to be treated. Perhaps asking questions of a person puts one into the “former friend” category and then it becomes okay?
Just a reminder about the policy that I set up for my own blog. Here it is from my disclaimer:
Cheryl,
Thanks for your answers. A few more comments.
1. First off- good on you for correcting my wrong biblical quote, sorry about that. However I can’t see in Num 14 how the text is saying that the generations are evil. Likewise I can’t see how 2 Kings is relating to the whole of Israel. It specifically calls into view Menassah. Not only that, if your interpretation would be to work you would have to say that every single person in Israel was apostate. There is no room in your theology to understand how the righteous amongst the nation still suffered because of the majority. Lamentations I think makes this clear. There were people in Israel who were faithful to the covenant, althought the majority (and the kings) were not. The same can be seen with Elijah, when God reserves 7000 for himself who do not bow the knee to Baal. To me the covenant was communial. The nation as a whole was to abide by it- especially the leaders (kings). When they were unfaithful, the nation suffered for that sin, even those who were righteous (though few). This same paradigm seems consistent with what the bible teaches about generational sin. Although person b is not responsible for person a’s sin, he/she may still suffer the consequences of it. Your thoughts?
2. I am glad you are not supporting universalism. It appears we again agree on this. Frankly I am astounded that you even have to defend the doctrine of original sin. Maybe that is a cultural thing in Canada/US. It seems pretty clear to me in the bible the nature of our depravity. Not only that Pelagianism was wiped out early on as heretical teaching by the church. It appears however that it still runs rampid. I applaud you for defending the bible here.
3. About the incarnation. First I must confess that I believe that this doctrine is probably the hardest to understand, even above the Trinity. How Jesus could leave glory, humble himself to earth and be both fully God and fully man is very difficult to understand, let alone explain. However I don’t see what you have said as solving the difficulty. You seemed to imply that not accepting your approach diminishes Jesus humanity- I don’t think it does. Jesus is fully human because he humbled himself to become human. The bible declares that he was tempted in everyway like us, so he was fully human, yet he withheld temptation. The reason I believe he withheld was because he was fully God. God cannot sin therefore Jesus could not have sinned, even though he was tempted to sin because of his humanity (this is where the incarnation gets messy). Your view makes it theoretically possible that Jesus could have sinned and I appreciate what you are saying because you are trying to understand how his humanity worked. But to imply that Jesus could have sinned is to deny that he was fully God, not able to sin. It also implies that God is able to sin theoretically and that he is changeable, both of which the bible denies. So I must protest again that emphasising this stuff about sin natures doesn’t solve any issues. I think it probably creates more. Not only that, but the bible is silent on this issue. It never says that Jesus was born of a virgin because only Mary did not pass on a corrupted nature. You are basically speculating on the issue. But I can see why you so it, because you need the incarnation to support your understanding of the banishment and sin, but I don’t think it works.
4. Finally I would just like to point out how you understand the seed of the woman in Gen 3. you said “It was God who said that the seed of the woman would defeat the serpent.” Now I don’t think this is actually correct. The verse in Gen does not say that the seed of the woman would ‘crush’ the head of the serpent. The NIV is unhelpful here. The Hebrew uses the exact same word for the serpent and the woman, namely the serpent’s seed will bruise the heel of the woman’s seed, and the woman’s seed would bruise the head of the serpents seed. Nothing in this verse indicates that the woman’s seed would be victorious or crush the serpent. All this protoevangelium stuff is read back into the verse from Christian heritage. I think the point of the verse is to show the enmity between the two offspring, the corruption of relationships because of sin, firstly between God and people, then between people and people and finally between people and animals. To say that one is victorious over the other is eisegesis not exegesis.
5. That said I am not saying that Jesus did not conquer over Satan, I believe that to be true, but the specific verse in Gen 3 grammatically does not say this, it’s read into the verse. Jesus conquering over Satan is established from other passages not Gen 3.
Sorry another point.
I just read through some of your comments Cheryl to others about original sin, and i must confess now after reading them that i disagree slightly with you.
I agree that we have a corrupt sinful nature, however i disagree that children are not born ‘sinful’. I can’t see how you say one while rejecting the other. MAybe you can expand on it for me? At what age therefore do children become sinful? When does there corrupt nature kick in if not at birth?
Regarding those who outright reject the notion of original sin i must ask therefore how you even understand grace. Without a proper understanding of sin, the offensiveness of it to God, our inabilty to be sinless, i can’t even fathom how grace is attractive. It seems like a cheap version of grace. You are either ‘dead’ in your sin according to Eph 2 or you are not. Maybe someone can express how they understand what the bible teaches about sin if Augustine and the early church was incorrect?
Mark, glad to have you back!
The issue is whether the people have repented from what the good King destroyed – the idols, the burning of their children to false gods, etc. Do you see where the people repented so that they would not be punished? After all God is not punishing innocent people. Or do you think that this is what God is all about – punishing people who have not sinned or people who have repented of their sin?
God treats the righteous differently than he treats the wicked. In one instance in the Scriptures a young boy from a wicked leadership is said to have to die as he was the only one who was not wicked. God said that his body would be the only on that would be buried. Sometimes God causes the death of the innocent to protect them from the punishment that He is going to inflict on the rest.
Other times, God promises to protect those who are obedient to Him and He prospers them even in the land of their enemy. Even those who are not Israelites qualify for special blessing from God even in the midst of God’s wrath on the wicked:
God is one who is faithful to those who trust in Him and He does not treat the faithful in the same manner as He treats the wicked.
God works within the levels of the entire community yet He also works in a one-on-one relationship within the community. This is especially important when the community becomes corrupt and unfaithful yet God is not unfaithful.
The consequences will only be toward those who hate God. The minute a person turns, repents and loves God, God breaks the sinful cycle. God is not unfair to the righteous.
Mark,
You said:
No, I don’t think it is a cultural thing. What I think it is, is a reaction to any teaching that goes beyond original sin and touches areas that the Bible doesn’t teach. There mere mention of an inherited sin nature can cause many to think that I have accepted all the unBiblical additions that are common today. But I don’t believe in throwing out what is Biblical because it has been warped along the way. The fact is that we have all be touched by the fall and all are kept under sin so that all can be draw to the Savior.
Thank you, Mark, I do appreciate that! I don’t think many here know or understand that the rejection of the sin nature coming from Adam was part of Pelagianism and it was condemned as heretical. I tend to want to show from the Scriptures where the “old man” nature is an issue and must be dealt with instead of ignored and rejected as if it doesn’t exist. To merely say that this teaching has already been rejected as heretical isn’t always helpful until one can show why the correct teaching is true. Maybe I am wrong in thinking this way, but that’s how I think.
Mark,
You said:
Mark, I think you are confusing things here. Jesus’ humbling Himself deals with his Deity. This explains how He could set aside his right to act independently as God.
Temptation doesn’t make one human. The angels were tempted to rebel but they weren’t human. Jesus’ humanity in a kinship is highly important in the Scriptures. This shows that He didn’t just come as a separate creation that wasn’t related to us, but that he was born in our form.
If you look carefully at Romans 1:3 you will see a necessary fact about his humanity:
Jesus had to be a descendant of David. It wasn’t good enough for Him just to be human. He had to be of a specific lineage.
The problem with this reasoning is that it not only makes the temptation invalid, but it makes Jesus really not to be like us. Remember that God cannot be tempted? It is only because He was also human, that Jesus could be tempted. There had to be something other than his being God that stopped Him from sinning otherwise how can we look to Him as one who suffered our temptations? His sinless nature (from being the seed of the woman) made Him able to not sin but it did not prevent Him from sinning. He would have been just like Adam was in the beginning. Adam didn’t have to sin, but Adam was able to sin if he chose to. Jesus did not have a sin nature, so Jesus did not have to sin. And Jesus as a man looked to God in keeping Him clean from committing sin. We can look to Jesus as our example and follow Him in trusting God to keep us clean.
Look at how Jesus handled temptation:
Now some think that being “saved from death” means that Jesus was praying that He would not have to go to the cross, but this is not correct for the next part says that “He was heard because of His piety”. God didn’t save Jesus from dying on the cross, but God did save Him from the death that comes from sin. God saved Him from being tempted to the point of sinning. As a man He looked to God for His help and God heard Him. Jesus is our true High Priest who has suffered like we suffered yet without sin. He didn’t sin because He is God. He didn’t sin because He looked to God in His temptations. All of this shows the importance of Jesus’ being a sinless human that comes through His humanity and not in spite of it.
This shows that you don’t understand the dual nature of Jesus. He was fully and completely human and fully and completely God. As God He was not able to sin, but He laid aside His right to act independently as God and He lived His life as a man. As a man he was able to sin just like the first perfect man was able to sin. If as a man He was not able to sin, then He wasn’t really human.
Again you don’t seem to understand that dual nature of Jesus. Do you remember that the Bible says that God is not a man that he could lie? Well, God isn’t a man. But God can take on humanity so that the humanity itself is not an addition to His Deity but an addition to his personhood. So in the form of God, he cannot sin, but in the form of humanity He had to be able be tempted. What He did was what Adam should have been able to do if Adam had been faithful and had looked to God for help. There is no temptation that can force us to sin if we are living in the Spirit and putting our trust in God.
I don’t know how far along in your pastoral studies you are Mark, but I hope that when you finish you will understand that the full humanity of Jesus and His being without sin from conception is highly important and is worth studying, worth debating and worthy of acceptance for it gives us reason for the hope that lies within us.
What the Bible does show is that it was a necessity for Jesus to be born of a virgin. It is when one studies why Jesus could not have a human father, that the sin nature that comes through Adam becomes clear and understandable.
I came to the understand of the vital importance of the virgin birth of Jesus long before I dug deep into the Genesis account to understand that only Adam was kicked out. The understanding of he incarnation helped me to understand the fall, not the other way around. I started with the basics and worked out from there.
Mark,
You said:
Paul alludes to Genesis 3:15 and interprets the crushing as being done to satan in Romans 16:20
And in Hebrews 2:14 the crushing is defined by the term “render powerless” as this is what the crushing means:
John MacArthur shows that the seed of the serpent is satan himself operating within his followers and it is satan who is defeated by Jesus:
And finally a quote from an Old Testament commentary written in the 1800’s that describes probably in the very clearest manner why the virgin birth was necessary:
Mark,
You said:
The problem with your view is that the New Testament authors like Paul and the author of Hebrews say Genesis 3:15 as being a battle between the virgin born Jesus and those who are in Christ and satan and those who are his followers. None of them saw this verse as being a battle between merely humans and humans or between humans and animals. That interpretation doesn’t fly with the NT.
You are then going to have some difficulty with the direct reference back to Genesis 3:15 by Romans 16:20. Any interpretation of the promise of God that makes it as merely a fight between humans and animals and that the humans win over the animals is seriously missing the point of the gospel preached in Genesis.
Mark,
You asked:
Sin nature is not sin. It is an inherited propensity to sin but it is not sin itself. One has a sin nature, but one doesn’t become a sinner until one actually sins. For example a baby still in the womb is not a sinner since he/she has not committed any sin. To say that the unborn are sinners is to go beyond what Scripture actually says and this is one of the reasons why so many are fighting against the teaching of the sin nature.
When a child lies or steals or whatever, they then are sinning and before that they have sin nature that makes sinning natural, but is not actual until they sin.
I look forward to reading an answer from one of those who believes that they have no sin nature.
I think that the verse about our being a “slave to sin” is a better one to use:
Here we see the “old self”. How does one who believes that there is no sin nature understand that? And what is the “body of sin”?
How can those who believe that they have no sin nature understand the issue of “slavery to sin”? If they have no sin nature, then they should be able to just stop sinning.
Mark,
Here is one other quote that you may accept since it includes the view of Calvin:
Cheryl,
I think that a propensity to sin and an inherited sin nature are not the same thing, and I think you’ve made it clear that they are not.
One can also argue that humankind has an inherited ability to do great good and therefore fulfill the law of Christ (Romans 2:14-16).
So where’s the rub? Do humans have no ability to do the right thing and make the world a better place?
Greg,
You have brought up an excellent question for discussion.
I think that first of all that there is an issue of definitions that needs to be discussed. In my discussions with Calvinists, they have told me that the “sin nature” that we have inherited makes us a “sinner” and means that we are guilty of sin from the time that we are an unborn baby in the womb. However their definition is faulty and this meaning is not found in the Bible. The “sin nature” is not actual sin and so we cannot be a “sinner” just from the “sin nature”. There must be personal sin that accompanies it for us to be actual sinners. So while a young child may have the natural desire to sin (and this is the sin nature) there is no guilt until actual sin is committed. No one will ever go to hell for having a “sin nature”. They go for their own actual and practiced sin and rebellion.
Romans 2:14-16 doesn’t say that. It says that the Gentiles have a conscience within them that is a law to them. Paul also says that their conscience sometimes defends them and sometimes accuses them depending on whether or not they follow their conscience. But these verses doesn’t say that we have a ability to fulfill the law of Christ. After all, if we were able to fulfill the law of Christ, then we would not have needed Christ to die for us. We could have made it on our own through doing good things if that is all it takes.
Sure. Some say that unregenerate man can not do a single thing that is good, but I don’t see that in the Scriptures. Jesus said that those who are evil can give what is good.
But is our ability to do good enough to say that we are basically good? It is interesting to see the the humanistic view is that we are basically good.
Carl Rogers says: I do not find that…evil is inherent in human nature. Carl Rogers was an influential American psychologist and among the founders of the humanistic approach to psychology.
But the Biblical world view is at odds with this view as we are told that we have desires inside that are part of our fleshly nature and these desires are not good.
There is a battle going on between the Spirit and the “natural” desires of our carnal “fleshly” nature. We have been tainted by the fall, not by someone else’s sin coming on us, but by a nature that we are at war with. For if we give in to the sinful nature within us, Paul says that we will die.
Paul talks about this inner war with his sin nature that he needs to fight and win through Christ.
Since the bible says that even those who are evil can do good, why is it that Paul says that there is no good in him? The answer is that although we can all do good, we are not good. Our deeds can include good, but our nature is not good. There is evil in the human nature that comes from the fall.
The truth claim in the Bible is that man is fallen and his heart is desperately wicked. The world’s philosophy is that man is basically good and that he should get in touch with his own inner desires so that he can have self actualization and save himself through self-oriented pursuits.
It is a cosmic battle that rages over two dimetrically opposed truth claims. Man is not intrinsically good but he has evil living within him and so mankind needs divine grace, regeneration and redemption. If we were created as good and perfect human beings without a “natural desire” to sin, then it would be possible for one of Adam’s offspring to live without sin. But the truth is that all have sinned and our natural desires are to continue to sin. Where does the natural desire to sin come from? Scripture says that one man brought sin into the world. Where did this sin go when it came into the world?
If there is no sin nature (or natural desire for sin) then the sin that Adam brought into the world didn’t go anywhere. It just died with him. But the Scriptures talk about a “spread” of sin that has spread to all. This natural desire for sin lives in each one of us and it comes from the rebellion of the one man.
I would like to challenge anyone who thinks that we as humans do not have the natural inclination to sin within us that has been inherited from Adam, to bring as much Scriptural proof for their position. Let’s not just argue from our reasoning, but let’s discuss the texts.
Thanks, Greg, for bringing a text onto the table. I don’t think that it proves your point, but it was nice to see Scripture here instead of just an argument.
Cheryl,
I’m not so sure that you have satisfactorally addressed the main issue in regard to our discussion.
You said that Numbers 14 says that the other generations were wicked also. But like i said i can’t see that in the text. Not only that but the 2 Kings reference deals with Menassah not the people. I can’t see how you can just interpret it as all Israel in these passages?
For example you said “The minute a person turns, repents and loves God, God breaks the sinful cycle. God is not unfair to the righteous.”
But according to Numbers 14 this simple doesn’t work. In Numbers the nation is rebelling about going into the Land promised to them, yet in verse 20 we read that God did forgive them. How does this work in your view, when directly following it, God then saids they will not enter the land. These people were forgiven yet still punished for their rebellion.
Again let me state that it seems far more consistent in view of all the relevant biblical passages to say that people do suffer the consequences of other peoples sins. The next generation did not rebel yet they still had to wonder in the desert for 40 years. They weren’t directly accountable for the sins, yet the repocussions still effected them.
Now regarding the incarnation.
I agree that i don’t understand the incarnation, and that is my point. None of us can!
However to come to the conclusion as you have done that Jesus was theoretically able to sin i must reject. I totally understand why you feel that this reduces his humanity but i think you have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
How can you say that Jesus being fully God could have sinned? Are you saying he left his ‘godness’ in heaven during his time on earth. I find it very hard not to see your view as heretical. This is the mystery of the incarnation, how one man Jesus Christ, can be fully human tempted in everyway, yet at the same time fully God unable to sin. Like i have said, it is a very difficult thing to understand yet explain. The fact that he had no father, therefore he had no sin nature, therefore Eve had no sin nature is too long a bow for me. THere is nothing in the bible to indicate this
Now regarding Gen 3:15
I dont think you have fully understood what i said. I did say that you can gain from other passages that Jesus conquered over Satan. I did say that Christians read Jesus back into Gen 3:15 or at least interpret it this way.
My point though was simply that exegetically, reading the verse in it’s original language, context etc it is not about one ‘crushing’ the other. The actual language used is each bruising each other. This is simply pure exegetical fact.
That said, i do not disagree that we as Christians like Calvin can understand this as the first prophecy of the messiah. But this is reading it in our position in salvation history. I agree with Calvin and you that this could be a prophecy, but exegetically the verse is not dealing with Eve’s seed ‘crushing’ the serpents.
Have i explained this well enough?
Greg,
I agree with Cheryl that the verse you quoted does not support a rejection of original sin. Perhaps in the discussion of what is ‘good’ or good works, Romans 14 might help.
Romans 14:23b “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”
So what constitutes as good? Only those things done in faith. So if a non believer cares for another (but it is not done in faith in Jesus Christ) it is sin. This is harsh but true. This is the nature of our rebellion to God. Nothing we do is good unless it is done in faith in Jesus. And no one can have faith unless God grants it to them.
Until we understand the depth of our depravity and sin we will never understand the grace and mercy of God. We ALL fall short says Romans, no-one is good, not even one. This is where Augustine and the reformers got it right!
a rejection of original sin, makes a mockery of the atoning work of Christ and the depravity of our rebellion.
#66 Mark,
I am just going to bed so I am going to pick just one of your comments for tonight and catch the rest as I can hopefully tomorrow.
I see now what you are getting at. Yes, the two words are the same but you are incorrect when you say that the actual language has nothing to do with crushing. I don’t know where you are getting this faulty information from but here are three lexicons followed by the Lexham Hebrew-English Lexicon and many translations.
I do agree that the same word should be used for both occurrences. After all satan did “crush” Jesus heel. When the nail was driven through the heel of Jesus the bone was crushed by the nail. So the term “crush” fits the prophesy far better than bruise.
The same Hebrew word is used in Job 9:17 and it is translated “crush” in the NIV, NKJV, NCV, RSV, GW, and Darby. And ASV translates as “breaketh” which is what crushing does. I could go on to look for more translations but I got tired.
Here is the Lexham Hebrew English where you can see the “crush”
and
Cheryl,
thanks for the info.
But i think my point still stands regardless of how you translate the word. You can’t say that the woman’s seed (in the context) is victorious over the serpents-so whether you translate it crush, strike, bruise etc you must do the same for both. This is why the NIV is un helpful. It saids the serpent’s seed will ‘strike’ but the woman’s seed would ‘crush’. This gives the indication that the verse is saying one is victorious, but again i don’t think exegetically it holds. Whatever the translation is should be the same. Therefore that is why i think in the context the point is broken relationships not victory over another. The serpent will bruise his heel and he will bruise his head.
I guess the other point could be whether the ‘head’ incicates something significantly more than the ‘heel’. That i suppose is open for speculation.
Mark,
You said:
Yes, I agree that this is the really neat thing that shows how God planned satan’s destruction from the beginning.
While God cursed the serpent, He also stated how the serpent through his seed will fight back at the seed of the woman and the very act of his fighting back will cause his destruction. The Hebrew term for “crush” is a prophesy that the serpent will crush the Messiah’s heel on the cross. Look here for new crucifixion evidence that shows that the heel was pierced with the nails:
From http://davidritsema.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/crucifixion/
So while God cursed the serpent in the garden because of his deception, the serpent tried to destroy God’s Messiah by cursing Him by the cross.
But God turned around and use the instrument that was meant to curse and kill Christ, into an instrument that would bring Christ the victory.
The very cross that was used as a weapon against Jesus by crushing his heel through crucifixon became the weapon that destroyed satan’s power. The curse was complete against the serpent when Jesus triumphed over the serpent with the cross. God used the very weapon (the cross) that the serpent tried to destroy Jesus with and it was prophesied back in Genesis that the thing that would crush the Messiah heal would crush the head of the serpent.
And because Jesus crushed the head of the serpent at the cross, we too as His body will has satan crushed under our feet.
The beauty of the cross and God’s prediction in Genesis 3:15 is that what the enemy meant for evil, God meant for good. The cross was meant by the enemy to curse and to destroy. But the cross actually destroyed the destroyer.
While the human author of Genesis likely never understood the words that he was penning concerning God’s words to the serpent, looking back on the prophesy we can see God’s plan made to destroy the serpent right from the beginning. The Word Biblical Commentary shows that even in the Septuagint and other Jewish writings back to the third century BC, the victory of the Messiah over satan was viewed in Genesis 3:15.
I have no doubt that when Jesus rose from the dead and He met with some of the disciples on the road, that He took Genesis 3:15 and explained its meaning to them.
Notice that Jesus started with Moses and from Moses’ writings He explained to them what had been written about Him and the suffering that He would experience. Genesis 3:15 is the very first Scripture that mentions the suffering of the Messiah with his heel crushed and it is also the very first Scripture that declares the victory on the same front as His heal was crushed. It is the cross and it is the sign of triumph over the serpent.
Mark,
You said:
The context is not broken relationships because this is about a curse on the serpent not a curse on man. A curse is about destruction not about a broken relationships.
Crushing the head is considered a death blow:
So the bottom line will be what is a curse all about? If broken relationships is the serpent’s curse, then man was cursed too. This can’t be true. The curse that was revealed by the crushing of the serpent’s head is a death blow to him and a cause for victory from the One who received the crush to His heel on the cross. This meaning of curse that brought defeat to the serpent and victory to the Messiah was seen centuries before Jesus was born. For us to reject this now is to lessen God’s purpose and plan to destroy the serpent and restore our fellowship with God.
Mark,
You said:
Here is what a critical commentary on this passage says about the failure of Judah to repent and the confirmation from other OT writings that these people were indeed wicked.
You also said:
They can be forgiven for their sin but the consequences will still happen. But this in no way says that God punishes the innocent which is what we were talking about.
God does not punish the innocent. When the generation came out of Egypt they were punished by not allowing them to go in to the promised land. The punishment was not 40 years in the wilderness. They were there for 40 years not for punishment but to allow all of that generation to die. Once they were dead, the children of these wicked people were allowed to go into the promised land.
Mark,
Now regarding the incarnation, I will answer that later when I have more time. Hopefully I can get to it later tonight after our bible study.
I have one more comment for people to think through and you may want to comment on this.
A sinless man was able to sin in the garden but he was also able to stay in the place of sinless as this was his nature. When man fell his nature changed so that he was unable to get back to where he had fallen from. He was now unable to live without sin and his new nature made it natural for him to sin just as it had been natural for him not to sin before he fell.
If man was now living in the “natural fleshly nature”, he could no longer be trusted to obey God’s law. It would appear then that God’s words…
When God used the prefixed imperfect tense it shows that the action was in progress but not yet completed.
If Adam’s rebellion to God regarding the tree of life was in progress but not yet completed, then this reveals his sin nature in progress heading toward a direction that God wanted stopped before it happened?
If Adam’s rebellion that is “in progress” at the time that God kicked him out of the garden, is not this the perfect definition of the “old man nature” or the “natural man” that we now call the “sin nature”?
What do you think?
Cheryl # 63,
Thanks so much for the friendly reply!
I can’t respond right now to my earlier comment (# 62) which you so graciously answered, but I fear that I didn’t represent myself as clearly as I would have liked to.
Hopefully I can respond soon to my earlier comment with a caveat or two that might enhance clarity.
Greg,
I so appreciate being able to discuss these issues. I welcome any comment, question or challenge as I do believe these are important issues to debate over in Christian love. It is also easy to misunderstand a person’s comments and I am glad that you are going to try to make your comments even clearer. Thanks for joining in!
>”God has placed us all under sin so that we would all be in a position to have faith in Him instead of earning our way to God.””My friend, let me say it this way. If Jesus was born with the same nature as the rest of mankind, then He couldn’t be the Savior. He had a different nature (sinless) but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t human.”“This is where Jesus was different than Adam’s end. Jesus never gave in to temptation and
His temptations were “in every way just as we are” while Adam was tempted to rebel in only one thing.””We didn’t sin “in Adam” as if we participated in his sin. We were “in Adam” when he sinned so that the consequences of his rebellion would be felt by those who had yet to be born. We experienced the results of the poison and our DNA was changed from perfect to disposed toward sin.”
“If there is no sin nature (or natural desire for sin) then the sin that Adam brought into the world didn’t go anywhere. It just died with him. But the Scriptures talk about a “spread” of sin that has spread to all. This natural desire for sin lives in each one of us and it comes from the rebellion of the one man.”<
Romans 5:12 is one of the verses most often cited in support of inherited “sin nature.” However, that’s not what the verse actually says.
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned”
We didn’t all sin “in” Adam. Death spread to all men because all sinned. Adam, whose name means humanity, is the archetype for mankind.
The nature of humanity was, in Adam, to die.
The nature of humanity in Christ, to live.
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”
This is such an important part of Christianity. God who loves us, made us alive in Christ, freeing us from the wrathful rule of the prince of the power of the air and bondage to our passions, and created us anew for good works. According to Eph.2:3, we “were” children of wrath – we were subject to the wrathful rule of the prince of the power of the air, but now Christ made us live.
Personally, as someone who by my early 20’s, was so bound up in the fear of my impending death and the futility of life (without God) that I saw no point in living, this was huge for me.
Jonathan Edwards himself could have preached “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” to my face and not effected me, but knowing that God set me free did.
So, I came to God because I found no point in living and then heard that He cares and went to great lengths to show it (“for God so loved the world…”) and He has a purpose for me. It wasn’t until after I was already in a relationship with God that the Holy Spirit began to show me the sin in my life. First, through grace and mercy, He loved me just as I was – lost in life and in need of Perfect Love. He loved me into a relationship. He did not condemn me into a relationship. Perfect Love that casts out fear. Sin is something that can only be truely understood from within a Christian vantage point. If you don’t know God, then it is impossible to see sin in its proper perspective.
“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.” Eph.2:1-3
This depicts the habitual style of life which had characterized these believers prior to their conversion. Had Paul intended to convey the notion of inherited sin nature at the time of their birth, he easily could have expressed that idea by saying,
“you became by birth children of wrath.” But he didn’t.
“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” Eph. 2:4-6
Christianity tells the story of a God who is about the business of rescuing mankind and all creation. We cannot rescue ourselves. Our God is not some distant deity. He is the Lord who comes near, the One who enters His creation as a part of it, who empties Himself. And by doing so, God is the one who destroys death and heals mankind, making relationship with God possible for us all. It was always God’s purpose for mankind to be joined in full relationship with God. And that is only ever possible through the action of God. We could never have joined ourselves to God unless he first joined his nature to ours. Otherwise, you end up with a God who is either overly concerned about defending His honor or a God who cannot forgive an offense without payment – a God without mercy and grace. Now, that does not correlate very well at all with the God I find in Scripture and it oversimplifies mankind’s problem and the measures necessary to save us. God paid His own penalty – that is forgiveness.
“There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
Because I reject the “inherited sin nature” perspective does not then mean that I believe that any of us are somehow free from the myriad actions and choices of our parents and ancestors. Nobody starts life with a clean slate completely free from the influence of anyone but themselves. But the language for what we experience is not properly boiled down to “guilt or innocence.” It is the language of consequences as well.
Anon y mous,
Welcome to my blog and to this conversation!
You said:
I agree that we didn’t all “sin” in Adam. That is a common error that takes Adam’s guilt and makes it our guilt but that can’t be true. But we were “in” Adam when he sinned and our physical death is part of what we received through our first father. But Scripture doesn’t say that we die only because we are from a mortal, but it clearly links our sin to something that has been spread to us.
But if the only “nature” of humanity through Adam is merely physical death, then how is it that sin “entered the world”? Remember the passage doesn’t say that “death” entered the world, but rather it was “sin” that entered. How did sin “enter” the world if sin involves only one man?
The questions that don’t seem to have a logical answer are how one man’s sin could cause sin to move into the world? And how is it that death is “spread” to all men since this death is attached to the fact that all sin?
There are several questions I have with your interpretation, if we are freed by Christ to the bondage of our passions, then why do we still have these passions inside?
I agree that the world’s view cannot see sin in its proper perspective.
But Paul did say that we were “children of wrath”. Look at the interlinear print below:
Anonymous,
I can’t really understand what your point is. Can you re-state a little clearer your position?
You said this “Otherwise, you end up with a God who is either overly concerned about defending His honor or a God who cannot forgive an offense without payment – a God without mercy and grace.”
Now regarding your last statement that God cannot forgive an offense without a payment. I fear you don’t understand the biblical position on the sacrifice necessary before God’s forgiveness. Are you saying that God can forgive our sins without a sacrifice? Can you elaborate?
I find it intriguing that those who reject the orthodox position think that orthodoxy presents a God without mercy and grace. Until we understand our sin properly we can never understand God’s mercy and grace properly. The fact is we all deserve to go to hell. It is only because of God’s mercy that he saves anyone. This whole notion that we are theoretically ‘good’ people is simply flawed. Let’s start judging our goodness in relation to a Holy God who can not tolerate sin, then we might begin to grasp the right perpective. This is why the gospel is so amazing that God would send his son to be a propitiation for us. The judgement we deserved fell on Jesus, so that we may be adopted and declared justified in God’s sight. This is the gospel. Anything else is simply false teaching.
Cheryl,
I appreciate your comments regarding Gen 3:15. Let me just say one final thing in case you missed it. I do agree with you that looking bcak at this verse in our position, we can see the prophetic nature of it. I’m just trying to look at the verse exegetically, that’s all- i think this is perhaps where we differ slightly.
However i’m not sure i’m ready to accept that the nail through the heel is fulfillment of Gen 3:15. That’s a bit too allegorical for me. You may be right, but i’d hold to that one loosely.
Thanks
Anon y mous,
You said:
The consequences that Paul is talking about are not because of the “choices” of our parents. It is about what is inside “us” that is a part of us.
While Christ made us alive together with Him and paid the price for our sin, there is a battle that goes on inside us that we cannot win without Christ who enables us to live “in the Spirit” so that we do not fulfill the desires of the flesh.
So the second question I need to ask you is what is the “desires of the flesh” that the Christian is not to live in?
Here Paul is talking to Christians and he says that there is a sinful nature that is contrary to the Spirit. He also says that these two natures are in conflict with each other so that you (Christians) do not do what they want to do. What kind of nature is it that Christians fight with that is in conflict with the Spirit?
In Romans 6:12 Paul is again talking to Christians telling them that there are lusts that want to reign in their mortal body and they are to not let this happen or they become slaves to this sin. If Christians are free from sin, then why is it that they are warned not to present themselves as slaves to sin?
You also said:
You say here that “children of wrath” and you connect this together with the “wrathful rule” of satan. What makes you think that children of wrath means subject to satan’s wrath?
The Scriptures don’t talk about satan’s rule as a wrath, but rather that we were accursed children subject to God’s wrath and our own nature of hostility.
I don’t see satan’s wrath being listed but I do see God’s wrath against those who live in unrepentant sin:
Lastly, you said:
By “or a God who cannot forgive an offense without payment” do you mean that He would be a God who requires us to pay for the offense or do you mean that God forgives without a sacrifice that pays for our sin? I am not exactly sure what you meant by this. Could you explain this a little more?
To all,
We have a group of people meeting in our home on Tuesday nights and we have been going through The Truth Project http://www.thetruthproject.org/ Tonight’s lesson was on the nature of man and the sin nature that is a battle within us. The host compares the worldview of the world that says that there is no evil within us and that we are basically good, showing that there are two worldviews that are diametrically opposed to each other. It has been a really good series so far and lesson 3 is top notch for showing how this nature of the “old man” within us is an important doctrine to understand to properly fight the battle between the “flesh” and the “Spirit”.
Cheryl,
Have you read Calvin on the issue of original sin? Particularly Book 2 chapter 1 of his Institutes?
Mark,
One cannot properly do exegesis without understanding the type of writing that you are exegeting. When we are looking to a prophesied future event, where God says what the serpent will do in the future and what the woman’s seed will do, one cannot determine the meaning without an understanding of the prophetic. You cannot just provide a meaning to the time when God said the words. God is defining the ultimate cosmic battle that ultimately draws in God Himself. If we take Genesis and Revelation we will see a prophesy and a fulfillment of the cosmic battle between good and evil. The ultimate victory of Christ using the very cross that satan used as a weapon against Him gives us the very nature of God for us to see.
God’s nature is to take evil and turn it around on its head to turn it into something that is good. And on the flip side God takes what is meant for evil and He gives back to the evil doer a measure-for-measure payment back.
Do you remember the account of Haman and Mordecai and Esther? Haman was asked by the king what he could do to bring honor to a person that deserved honor. Haman thought who could the king want to honor more than himself and he set up what he wanted as an honor. It was a public honor with royal robes and a public declaration of the king’s favor and honor. But then he had to do this for Mordecai whom he despised. This event caused him to hate Mordecai so much that he devised a plan to kill all of the Jews. He planned to take away Mordecai’s public honor by a public hanging and Haman built a huge gallows 75 feet high to publicly humiliate and kill Mordecai. But if you remember the story, God turned the evil around in his own face and Haman and his sons were the ones hung on those 75 feet high gallows.
This is God’s way. He takes the evil that is planned and He turns the evil around into the bosom of the evil doer. How did God turn the evil of satan around?
Is it not true that He brought satan’s destruction through the seed of the one whom satan deceived? Is it also not true that satan devised a plan to kill Jesus with a curse of death by killing him on the cross? Remember that any who is hung on a cross is cursed. And is it not also true that God took this plan and turned it on its head and used the cross to defeat satan?
There are multiple prophecies of Jesus birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection in the OT scriptures. Where is the prophesy in the OT of God’s turning around the evil plan of satan to kill Jesus on the cross and to use this plan to make a public spectacle of the enemy triumphing over him in it (the cross)? All of this was prophesied the very day that satan deceived the woman. And the type of death was prophesied (crushing of the heel on the cross) before crucifixion was even invented. God gets the glory for all of this.
However, taking your exegesis, all God is saying is that the serpent is going to be hated by people and he will try to bite men on the heel and they will try to kill him because they don’t like each other. And so the curse on the serpent becomes the curse on man with each after the other bruising one another. Does this interpretation fit with God’s way of turning the evil around and bringing the evil planned back on the head of the evil doer? Does this interpretation show that God is able to bring good out of evil? Or does this interpretation fail in bringing God the full glory that His Son brings Him through the destruction of the serpent?
Comparing the two interpretations shows a serious lack of meaning to your view and the fact that the cosmic battle of good and evil and between the serpent and the Messiah was understood long before Christ was born to crush the head of the serpent, showing to me a consistent pattern of God getting the glory. If you choose to reject that after all I have shown and stick to an interpretation of curses between snakes and men giving no glory to God, then I guess you have the right to your interpretation. But I don’t buy it at all.
What I find so awesome is that the more evidence archeology finds, the more of a God-pattern we see. When I first saw the pictures of the heel being crushed by the nail several years ago I was jumping inside by the incredible marvel of God’s Word. It wasn’t a “bruising” of Christ’s heel at all and this never seemed to fit. When did this allegorical “bruising” happen to Christ? But when I could see that it was a literal “crushing” of the heel on the cross, it all came together for me. The more I read the Scriptures the more they come to life for me and the more I came to trust the God who can predict the serpent’s plan before it ever entered the serpent’s head. The serpent never got it or he would never have crushed the Messiah’s heel on the cross. If he had really known the character of God that evil is put back on the head of the evil doer, he would have understood that getting Christ on the cross was his death knell. Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled on the day that they nailed Christ’s heel onto the cross and satan never even knew it was coming.
Mark,
You said:
No, I haven’t. I have kept my research mainly to the Bible and lexicon studies along with historical sources. Actually I have had quite a few Calvinists quote Calvin to me with obvious contradiction to the Scriptures, that I haven’t even had a desire to read his material. However I do have the Calvin 108 volume collection (http://www.logos.com/products/details/5170) in my trusty collection ready for any study that I need to do for my DVD on the Sovereignty of God. However getting into that has to wait until I finish my book this summer.
Mark,
You said:
Then you are saying that Jesus was not the last Adam? That He did not have free will like the first Adam?
Because Jesus wasn’t just fully God. He was also fully human. And in God’s creation humans were given free will. Adam was able to sin even though he didn’t have to sin. He had the choice to obey or disobey.
The Bible says that Jesus learned obedience. Did He have an ability to learn and an ability to obey? Then He had to have an ability to disobey otherwise He wasn’t the last Adam, just like the first Adam in his humanity before sin entered the world.
No I am not saying that. I am saying that He laid aside his right to use His abilities as God independently and for His own benefit. He lived here on the earth completely as a human relying on His Father to give Him the okay to use His God powers. That is why He can read people’s thoughts at one time and yet another time He didn’t know who touched Him. He was not operating on His own but on full dependence on the Father. He was living as a human, as the last Adam so that He could be an example to us. How could He be an example if He had no temptation to sin? The Father could not be tempted, but Jesus could be tempted. Why? Because the Father is not human. Only Jesus took on humanity so that He could be our Kinsman Redeemer.
There are two kinds of mysteries. One kind of mystery is that which has been revealed and is available for us to get to know and understand. The other kind of mystery is hidden and is not given to us. What has been revealed about Jesus Christ is for us to know as it is a revealed mystery.
Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. I would suggest that you get some shorter arrows and then you won’t have a problem with this bow 😉 Okay, silliness aside, my next post will deal with the issue of the last Adam compared to the first Adam. It might help a little. God is an Amazing God who has revealed all kinds of pictures for us in the Scriptures if we are willing to diligently search and find them. Nothing is haphazard to Him as all has a plan. When we can see God’s plan revealed in the Scriptures, it helps us to know His Character better as we can understand better how He controls the outcome without controlling the people.
I may be offline for extended periods of time during this Easter season as we will be spending time with our daughter and her family. I will be back here as I am able but my time away will start from later this morning.
Cheryl,
May i suggest that you at least read Calvin, because it is very clear when you make sweeping statements about ‘calvinist’ or ‘calvinism’ that what you are understanding is not actually what he taught.
For example you gave the indication that Calvin taught that we are punished for Adam’s sin, because of perhaps what someone may have said.
But if you read the reference i gave you, maybe it will help you actually understand the reformed position on original sin. Calvin did teach that every single person is tainted with a sinful nature from birth- that everypart of us is infested by sin. But he also clearly taught that each man is responsible for his own sins, not another’s.
I just think if you at least read Calvin, then you will be in a far better position to judge on ‘Calvinism’ regarding original sin.
More later on the incarnation aswell.
Have a good break
Mark,
The people that are helping me in the Calvinist area are apologists for Calvinism. I was told that the Calvinist position is that we are “sinners” from the moment of conception because of Adam’s sin. This is far different than having a “sin nature”.
I haven’t had a chance to see my grandkids yet as we arrived too late but the next few days should be wonderful. I will pop in here as I can.
Re Cheryl #63 & #76
1) When I argued that humankind also has the ability to fulfill the law of Christ, I was thinking in terms of Galatians 6:2.
Restoring, helping, and doing good to one another does indeed fulfill the law of Christ, whether it is done by Gentiles outside the house of Israel, or done by the Jews within.
If man’s default condition can only be evil by nature, how can he by nature (Romans 2:14) do the things contained in the law as Paul claims?
I am simply affirming that humans are born with a spark of the divine (made in God’s image) and the free will to exercise that spark.
caveat: This in no way says, nor does it imply that I can effect my own resurrection (apart from Christ) into a brand-new corporeal (flesh) body (Job 19:25-27) that does not wear out and die (Revelation 21:1-6). Only Jesus can do that for me.
2) I do NOT agree for a moment with the world view of modern humanism (Rogers et. al.).
But I do agree with the classical humanism of Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) as touching his call for moderation and tolerance in stark contrast to the dogmatism of the reformers (Luther & Calvin).
caveat: The humanism of Erasmus is NOT the same as the secular humanism of today.
3) I do not deny that we all wage an inner war between choosing to do good things or opting to continue in the pursuit of wickedness.
And yes the heart is deceitful and wicked (Jeremiah 17:9); no contest, but the Bible also speaks of a merry heart and a clean heart.
In context, Jeremiah 17 is about the sin, idolotry, and ill-gotten wealth of Judah, not the default condition of the human heart, because in verse 10, God says that he searches the heart to see what its real motive is and what the payout will be.
4) I believe that we have inherited physical death from Adam in conjunction with the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17)
Genesis 4:7 also tells me that I have been given the ability to do the right thing and slam the door in sin’s face.
Unless this set-up has somehow been changed or abrogated in the remainder of scripture, I am having a difficult time finding an inherited trait that forces me to open the door, make nice with sin, and let it have its way with me.
Greg,
Thanks for taking the time to flesh out your view.
I don’t believe that man’s default condition is only “evil by nature”. The Bible says in several places that we can do good. The gentiles can do good and even the Pharisees who were against Jesus could do good to their own children. The issue for Paul was not whether we can do good things but if the good that we can do is the basis of a “work” that will save us. None of us is sinless so the good that we do doesn’t create a “good” person who has no need for the Savior. So we both agree mankind is capable of doing good things.
I can also agree that we are capable of doing good by our own free will, however we do not have the ability to live a sinless life without the Holy Spirit’s power for our will has been tainted by the fall. Our salvation also is not just a new body and the resurrection but a restored relationship with God that has been paid for by the Lord Jesus. Only Jesus can do that for us too, right?
I believe that the truth is in the middle so that humanity’s free will is not completely free nor is it completely in bondage. If human will was completely free then we wouldn’t struggle with sin as Paul shared his struggle in the book of Romans. And if human will was completely in bondage then it would make no sense for Jesus to say that even the evil Pharisees could do good things.
Also no matter how many good things we can do should we desire to do them, those good works can never wash away our sin for just one sin against God’s law makes us a law breaker.
You also said:
But would you also agree with me that God is the one who must clean our hearts since we are incapable of making ourselves pure?
What I see in the Scriptures is that the one who trusts in God is considered righteous. And that one who is considered righteous by God is able to consistently live by faith in his/her actions.
The inherited trait does not force us into letting sin have its way with us. Rather the trait causes us to desire sin naturally while God has also created us in His image allowing us the ability to refuse sin should we so desire. So just as Paul says that the gentiles obeyed the law even though they had not been given the law (just as we all have a God-given conscience) none of the gentiles kept God’s law perfectly.
The issue with Cain is two-fold. First of all he did not give his sacrifice to God by faith thus only Abel’s offering is said to have been by faith:
After Cain did not come to God by faith, he had his sacrifice rejected by God. It is interesting that Cain is told that he must master sin after he had already sinned by refusing to come to God in faith and sinned by being angry without cause.
The way I see this is that the sin nature made it easy for Cain to sin by being angry without cause, but just because it was natural for him to feel hatred doesn’t mean that this sin had to have complete control of him. While Cain had the mandate to master the hatred within him so that it would not become murder, the fact that he had an internal hatred to begin with shows the sin nature.
So the difference is that the sin nature causes us to have the internal inclination towards sin yet we are still able to make choices regarding what we will do with our sinful feelings. If we give in to the feelings that are already within, sin becomes our master and it becomes harder to fight just as practiced sin makes us a slave to sin.
Greg, I am wondering if you can see the difference between what is within naturally and our actual acting out of the sinful thoughts? It seems to me that the cause of confusion is mixing the two up. Your answer didn’t deal with inner sin nor did you deal with Cain’s already sinful anger that had already happened. If you are willing to distinguish between the two (one sin that had not yet happened at the time God talked to Cain and one sin that had already been committed within him) that would be great.
Cheryl, can you expound for me a little on the first statment in regards to the fall of Genesis. And on your second statement I agree with completely. Thank you.
Good verse that I need to keep in mind.
Cheryl,
I can’t see how your view is any different to Greg’s really. You say we are born with a sinful nature, yet you say that we have the ability to not sin. For example you said.
“So the difference is that the sin nature causes us to have the internal inclination towards sin yet we are still able to make choices regarding what we will do with our sinful feelings. If we give in to the feelings that are already within, sin becomes our master and it becomes harder to fight just as practiced sin makes us a slave to sin.”
What makes us able to make those choices? Free-will? IF you say free will then your view is identitical to Greg’s since he also believes that we have the ability to do good or keep God’s requirements by our own free-will.
Problem is this contradicts with scripture. Eph 2 says we are dead in sin. Romans 3 outlines the nature of sin. No-one seeks God, nor does any do good. John 3 says that we need to be re-born before we can come to God. Many old testament prophecies of the new covenant talk of a ‘new heart’ that is needed becasue our heart is corrupt.
Point is- until the Spirit gives us a new heart and opens our eyes we will never be able to act in faith in Christ. And Romans 14 says everything not done in faith is sin. So even those ‘good’ works are sin since they are not done in faith. Our free-will is corrupt since the fall. We will always choose sin over God, unless the Spirit intervenes in our lives.
If faith is not itself a gift, can you explain therefore how then we are not adding to our salvation? EVen if God does 99% and we do the last 1% it is still works based salvation. THis is what Augustine and the reformers have been fighting against throughout all of Church history, yet people still wish to promote this false teaching.
Pinklight,
When the fall happened man became mortal and subject to decay. The final part of our salvation is getting a new body not subject to death or decay.
Mark,
Since Greg doesn’t believe that we have an “old man” nature and I believe that we do, how is it that our view is not different? Also I didn’t say that we have the ability not to sin at all so that we are sinless. I did say that we have the ability to make choices when we are tempted, whether we will sin or not. For example many married men have had temptations to commit adultery but not all have committed adultery. The fact that many have not sinned in this way even if they are unbelievers shows that they had a choice to stay away from this sin.
God has given us the power to make choices. Otherwise it would be deceitful for God to tell us to “choose you this day…” if we had not power of choice. But at the same time we do not have the ability to keep the requirements of the law otherwise we wouldn’t need a Savior.
Eph 2:”dead people” can respond to God. They can also sin.
Romans 3:11 is a quote from Psalms 14:1-3 and the context about those who do not seek God, is those who say there is no God.
Yet throughout the Scripture we find those who seek and fear God. Deut. 4:29 is a prophetic word about those who will seek God.
You said:
John 3 doesn’t say this at all. It says that unless we are born again we cannot see the kingdom of God. It doesn’t say that we can’t come to God.
We are told to circumcise our hearts. We do this through repentance as we come to God and as we believe Him, He gives us a new heart.
Faith in God and receiving Jesus comes before we become children of God.
The Bible never says that we are again first and then we are able to have faith.
Romans 14 is talking about believers not unbelievers. The context is eating something that you believe to be sinful. It is going against our conscience. The chapter has nothing to do with unregenerate men doing good works.
You said:
As I said before, our free-will is not completely free. However God has chosen to give us the freedom to seek God as He requires this from all of us.
Salvation is the gift of God and the vehicle is by grace through faith. The faith that is listed as God’s gift is not given to all of the saved just as not all have the same gifts.
If we “work” even 1% for our salvation then it is a works based salvation. However faith is not a work.
Augustine the Father of Catholicism and any brother who separates from their brothers in Christ by calling their faith a work is harming the body of Christ for we are not to separate from our brothers in the faith or to call their faith a heresy merely because they are not Calvinists.
Cheryl,
I understand that you believe in a sin nature from Adam and Greg does not, but the logical conclusion of what you are saying leads to the same path. You say we have the ability as unregenerate people to come to God. You say that we have the ability as unregenerate people to not sin. If this is true, then theoretically we could be sinless. If I am able to avoid sinful behaviour because of my free-will, this should apply to all sin, therefore theoretically I could avoid sin even though I have a sin nature. This then leads to the problem you pointed out with Greg that we then no longer need a saviour. I can’t see how you can worm your way out of that one. Either we will by nature always sin or we won’t, and we can keep God’s commandments. The view you are presenting doesn’t make sense.
You used the example of an adulterer. Problem is Jesus up’d the anti. Anyone who looks lustfully is committing adultery. Are you willing to say that we can fulfil this requirement by ourselves, without the intervening of the Holy Spirit.
I agree that God gave us the abililty to make choices. God calls on us to follow him. The problem is that after the fall our nature was corrupted by sin. We by nature reject God by sinning from the moment we are born. I’m sure you can see Cheryl after having children, that we as parents have to teach our children how to be good. They will by nature be evil. You don’t teach a toddler how to lie, he/she will do it automatically. Thus our ‘free-will’ is totally corrupted. We will always choose sin over God In our natures. This is why we need a saviour, we can’t do it by ourselves.
I would like to know how you think that ‘dead people’ can respond to God. According to the passage we were all dead people. We were all people under wrath- every single person. BUT, verse 4 says it was GOD who made us alive, not us. What you have said is completely contradictory to Eph 2, and it strips the glory from God. Only God can make us alive, we have no ability by ourselves.
It is also interesting that you think the ‘faith’ in Eph 2 is not a gift for every believer. Then I guess you would also like to be consistent and say that the salvation that is by grace through faith (which is what the verse is about) is not for every Christian. You can’t have it both ways Cheryl. I’m afraid you have dug yourself into a hole with this one.
Romans 3 is a quote from the psalms that is true. But to come to the conclusion that you have is misguided. We should ask the question- how is Paul using it here? What is the context? The verses before the quote give the answer.
Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,…
It doesn’t seem like Paul is talking only about those who do not seek God does it Cheryl? No, Paul clearly states that all are like this, Jew and Gentile, even himself. I’m afraid Paul’s intention here, (noting that the first 3 chapters of Romans are dealing with everyone, Jew and Gentile) is that he is using this quote to support his view that every single person is like this. No one seeks God by themselves as dead in sin. I can’t understand why you would want to water our sinful nature down when the bible is so graphic about it. You can’t just dismiss the context of Romans 3 and Paul’s intention of using this quote to support his argument, as irrelevant and only rely on the Old Testament context. Paul is clearly using it here with another purpose.
Your other old testament quotes do nothing to support your view of unregenerate man seeking God. The first one is a dubious translation, the NIV makes is a hypothetical by using ‘if’, that is “But if from there you seek the Lord”,
In the 2 Chronicles verse, you forgot to mention the verse before which show God intervening through the Prophet Azariah. So the same principle applies, God has to work first before we can respond.
Another point to note is that the Bible never talks about our own free-will, as if we can accept God by ourselves especially in the verses you quoted. These passages are silent on why the people turned to God, but we have other clear passage which show us why people do turn, namely, because God intervenes. Does Jesus not say that no-one can come to the Father unless the Father draws him? We are better understanding the silent passages from the clear passages, not assuming free-will into them.
John 3- Cheryl, what is the kingdom of God, if not a relationship with him? What does Jesus mean by being born again? I would like to know your opinion? When are we born of the Spirit (verse 5)? You must believe that the Spirit of God does not enter our life until we respond in faith right?
So if we can circumcise our own heart by our own repentance, why did we need the new covenant. Didn’t at least some of the Jews repent Cheryl? I think you are greatly misinformed. The whole purpose of the new covenant was that God would give us a new heart (Jer 31:31). The Jews broke God’s covenant because they had a heart of stone. In the New Covenant God promises to give us a new heart by his spirit internally. He promises to right his laws on our hearts through the Spirit. This is of such great importance. Your view makes the new covenant un-necessary. In our own strength we are nothing and can do nothing to save ourselves. Again I must protest that you are stealing the glory from God in HIS work. It is not our own doing.
By the way Cheryl, repentance is also a gift of God not our own strength
2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
Who grants repentance here Cheryl, clearly God. Repentance and faith are gifts of God to his sheep, so that no-one can boast.
You said “Faith in God and receiving Jesus comes before we become children of God.”
Really Cheryl, I don’t think Romans 8 says this
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
We were predestined to be conformed to Jesus image before we are justified according to these verses. And since faith is the requirement for justification we must conclude that no-where does faith precede God’s ordained plan. We were God’s children CHOSEN before the world was created according to Eph 1:4. If only you realised Cheryl, that you were God’s chosen child before you even knew about Him.
It is true that John 1 says we become God’s child after we trust in Jesus. I believe that, but I also believe that bible clearly teaches that this was God’s plan for my life before the world was even created.
You said “The Bible never says that we are again first and then we are able to have faith.”
I’m interested to know how you pray for your unsaved friends Cheryl. Do you pray for God to open their eyes or to soften their hearts? Or do you not even ask God to help and just believe that their own free-will is good enough? I sure hope you do the former and not the latter! You see everyone believes in the sovereignty of God when they pray and ask God to intervene, even if you deny it when you speak to me. Being ‘born-again’ is God opening their eyes to the message of the cross. We in sin are dead people according to Eph 2 therefore we need to be re-born and made alive, and like i said ealier, EPh 2 tells us that it is God who makes us alive not oursleves. Being born again definitely comes before faith. It is the work of the spirit in unregenerate man so that he can accept the message of salvation.
Roman 14- I agree with the context, but the verse still says what it says. Everything not done in faith is sin, whether you’re a believer or unbeliever. The reason being that everything is to be done for the glory of God. IF it is not done in faith in God how can it give glory to God, it simply can’t. I can’t see why you would deny this biblical verse. Do you believe that you can do things that are not in faith in Christ and it not be sin?
You said “As I said before, our free-will is not completely free. However God has chosen to give us the freedom to seek God as He requires this from all of us.”
Where does it say this in the bible? God demands that we follow him and no other, but I haven’t seen anywhere where the bible says we have the ‘freedom to seek God’. Aren’t we as fallen people living in the darkness, suppressing the truth, until God opens our eyes? Please show me verses talking about our freedom to seek God and our free-will in doing this?
“If we “work” even 1% for our salvation then it is a works based salvation. However faith is not a work.”
I agree that faith is not a work, it is because it is a gift of God so that none can boast. If faith is something we do without God, then it is a work of ours because it doesn’t stem from God, therefore you have works based salvation. This is the problem with your view. You can’t skirt around the issue. You need to do better at convincing me that you are not promoting a works based salvation. Like I said Pelagianism (Augustine) and semi-pelagianism (reformers) were both condemned. How is your view not semi-pelagianism Cheryl? Unless we accept that every single piece of our salvation is from God, it will always be works based. That is simple truth.
I do pray that God will reveal that to you, in the same way he did to me a few years ago. It totally changed my understanding of the grace of God. He is so merciful.
By the way let me be clear that i do not think that non-calvinists are not Christians. I myself was not always convinced of reformed theology but i would never have said i wasn’t saved. Nor do i think that others are not saved.
I simply believe that as i have grown in my walk we God he has been gracious to open my eyes to new hard truths of the bible even when they seem unfair.
I will however always protest when i think the gospel is at stake, and i believe it is at stake when we deny that faith is a gift of God for all believers. A works based salvation is contrary to scripture and i know Cheryl agrees. This is a false teaching on justification by faith and must be said so.
We must be willing to always seek to honour God and not ourselves and to always be faithful to scripture even when it seems hard. Hope this helps you understand my stance.
Mark,
You said:
Hold on there, back up that boat! I didn’t say that unregenerate people have the ability to come to God. I said that unregenerate people can seek God. These are two completely different things.
God cannot be found unless He allows Himself to be found. God has given the promise that He will be found under several circumstances. One circumstance is that the person seeks for God with their whole heart.
Seeking God and “coming to God” are not the same thing.
You have an interesting misunderstanding of my position as you said:
I didn’t say that unregenerate people have the “ability” to not sin. It is impossible for a person with a sin nature to never commit one sin. That is one of the reasons why Jesus had to be born without a sin nature.
What I did say was that unregenerate people have the ability to choose to not follow the temptation to sin. While the “old man” nature within us propels us into various levels of sinful behavior, this nature cannot force us to sin. We are left with the choice, but our “free will” is not completely free since the “old man” naturally tends toward rebellion. A person can fight the “old man” but never master this “old man nature” without the help of the Holy Spirit and even then we are fighting a battle that will never be won perfectly until the “old man” within this mortal body is put to death and we take on our new bodies with our perfect new nature made in the image of Christ.
Nope. It is not even possible. The “old man nature” is not an after thought of God’s but part of His Sovereign plan to make us all alike in need of Him.
Because all have one nature (the old man nature given to us through Adam) all are shut up in disobedience through our human nature. God did this by making sure that there was not even one single offspring of Adam that was conceived before the fall. All of us are shut up together in this nature for the purpose of making us all equally in need of a Savior and all equally in need of God’s mercy.
I don’t need to worm my way out of anything since I affirm the Scriptures. Our “old man” nature has made sure that all of us are in the same hot water. All of us need a Savior and my view can never be twisted to say that we can be sinless and work our way to Heaven.
Actually it is your view that doesn’t make sense. While I am saying that it is impossible for a person with a sin nature (old man nature) to stay sinless, it seems to me that you are saying that it is impossible for a person with a sin nature to fight a temptation. If that were true then there would be no faithful marriages and no truth could possibly be told by any unregenerate person. But this is obviously not true. is it?
What I am saying is that no unregenerate person is forced to commit adultery because of his/her sin nature. And some have even dealt successfully with lust. After all it helps to be an unregenerate person who is a eunuch 😉 However all of us are bound up in this common nature that brings rebellion out in us in one area or another (or in all areas!) We all need a Savior.
Nah. That is overstating your case. You may have sinned the first day you are born, but most babies are unable to break the 10 commandments until a little later.
Nah again. Jesus said that even those who are by nature evil people, can also by nature do good things. Young children can just as easily reach out to comfort another child as they can smack the nonsense out of an irritating sibling. No one has to teach them how to comfort a hurting child or how to smack down a nuisance. Even babies can do good out of their human nature as they still have enough of the God-image within them to do good things. That image has not been destroyed.
Most toddlers will naturally lie, but some will not sin as easily in this area. Their weakness may be in another area even though they will all be bound under sin.
If this was true, then Jesus did not tell us the truth when he said that evil people can do good. And they can do this good freely of their own free-will without coercion
We don’t need a Savior “because we always choose sin over God”. We need a Savior because we are all sinners and without the price that Jesus paid on our behalf, we would be lost in our sin and alienated from God.
I am having trouble with my internet tonight so I am going to see if these comments go through and I will get to the rest as the connection allows me to.
“God cannot be found unless He allows Himself to be found. God has given the promise that He will be found under several circumstances. One circumstance is that the person seeks for God with their whole heart.”
How can an ungenerate person seek God with their whole heart when their heart is corrupt? I don’t think they can. Genesis 6:5 is very clear on the condition of the human heart.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Our heart by nature is corrupt, it is stone. This is the importance of the new covenant. It is God who gives us a new heart according to Jeremiah. We need a new heart to seek after God. Our new heart isn’t given to us after we seek God. The human heart is evil and does not seek God. The spiritual heart on the otherhand will. That is why we need to be re-born (a new heart) before we can accept the message of salvation. That is why we need to be born again BEFORE we can see the kingdom of God
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Seeing the kingdom is to be saved, therefore being born again is before we are saved, before faith not after. Jesus again repeats himself that we CANNOT enter the kingdom of God (be saved) unless we are born of the Spirit and water.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Your fighting against the Bible by stating that we can seek God when our heart is stone and not re-born. Being born again is something that happens before faith not after. The bible is clear on that. PLease show verses stating otherwise.
By the way can you differentiate between ‘seeking God’ and ‘coming to God since you seem to make that an important distinction.
Hey Mark,
Can’t keep up with you, man. We just got back from our Easter time out and my head is pounding besides the internet problems.
Let’s see what I can do before I head off to bed.
God has graciously given us both the ability and the mandate to seek Him. While you gave Genesis 6:5 as proof that all men had only evil in their heart continually, that verse is not without exception.
Noah and Job and many others were seen as “righteous” and not ones with an “evil heart”. We cannot take a generality and make it a rule without exception. That isn’t good Biblical exegesis.
Um, where does the Bible say that we need a new heart in order to seek after God?
Oh yeah? In Deut. 10:16 God commands the people to circumcise their hearts before He does His work of circumcision that produces a new heart.
This circumcision by God is the removal of the foreskin of sin on our hearts and it is necessary for us to love God with all of our hearts and live in His love. God fulfills the complete act of what man is required to start. Man is required to repent and to circumcise his own heart through a turning away from evil and a turning toward God, while God does the miracle of a brand new heart. There is nothing at all in the Scriptures that I have seen that says God must give us a new heart before we can seek Him.
I have already dealt with this in context. It is the fool who says there is no God who does not seek God. Those who do seek God and who fear God are called righteous. They are never called evil.
That is a human tradition and human reasoning but it is not Scriptural. Where does the Bible say that we have to be born again before we can accept the message of salvation? Where does the Bible say that Cornelius was born again before he heard the gospel?
Mark, Mark, Mark, how long will you change the Scriptures? “entering” the kingdom of God is not being born again “be saved”. One is born again a long time before one enters the kingdom of God and into eternity. It is a fact that one cannot see nor enter the kingdom of God without being born again, but to equate being born again with “entering the kingdom of God” is mashing the Word of God.
The disciples did not claim to have “entered” the kingdom of God. It was something that was future to them and not the same thing as their being born again.
My friend, it appears that you are the one who is in need of understanding the Scriptures. First of all, not every heart is stone. Those who harden their hearts against God’s call will eventually turn their heart to stone, but not all harden their hearts. Many will respond with gladness to His call.
Secondly God commands the unregenerate to seek Him.
It would be a cruel act for God to command men everywhere to seek Him if He was the One deliberately stopping them from seeking Him.
Our God is a gracious God, filled with loving kindness and abounding in mercy.
I will get to the other questions/comments next day, God willing.
Oh, I forgot to get to this one.
You first. Please show me where born again happens before faith and once you have shown me the supporting verse(s) we can discuss your challenge.
I will be waiting with baited breath 😉
“By the way let me be clear that i do not think that non-calvinists are not Christians. I myself was not always convinced of reformed theology but i would never have said i wasn’t saved. Nor do i think that others are not saved.”
Mark,
Many of your comments do not lend themselves to that impression. Just sayin’…
“Either we will by nature always sin or we won’t, and we can keep God’s commandments. The view you are presenting doesn’t make sense.”
If this was true, then it would be life threatening to walk down the street, shop for food, picnic in the park or do any other normal task.
“Our God is a gracious God, filled with loving kindness and abounding in mercy.”
I really appreciate the concept of ‘hesed’ demonstrated throughout the OT.
Mark,
You said:
“Dead” is a metaphor. We know that “dead” people can bury the dead. They can eat, drink, be merry and they can respond to God. Cornelius was not born again when he responded to God’s call to hear Peter. He was also not born again when he was said to “fear God” and as a “devout” man he “prayed to God continually”.
Of course. Who is teaching that we ourselves can accomplish the miracle of re-birth? Who is teaching that we make ourselves alive? It isn’t me.
This seems to be a consistent problem with Calvinists. They misunderstand what non-Calvinists believe. To say that I believe that we have the ability to accomplish the miraculous work or being born again of our own effort is a serious misrepresentation that is common amongst Calvinists. My question – why do you do that?
Hold on here and back this truck up again. You are messing with the text again and making the gift in this passage as a noun instead of a action verb.
The “gift” is salvation which is completely a work of God. It is a verb that is tied to verse 9 “not as a result of works”. The Greek term for “works” is:
The verb of God’s action in verse 8 (salvation) is contrasted with the “works” of man in verse 9 so that the action of salvation is “not of” yourselves and the action of salvation is not a result of (or out from) our works so that you can boast of what? So that no one can boast of working for a right standing with God. It alone (the work of God is the verb “salvation”) comes by grace (the cause of the work) through faith (the vehicle through which the action is delivered). There is no doubt at all that by the wording that “salvation” is the accomplishment that is done for us and given as a gift. See Wuest’s fine work here:
Mark, you said:
I find it amazing that Calvinists see Christian brothers and sisters in holes where no such holes exist. I am on solid grounds exegetically and the “gift” is not “faith” but the action verb “salvation” of which action only God can be source of.
The translation of the verse that you quoted does not give the full flavor of the Greek. It is an us vs them where we are righteous but all of them (Jews and Greeks) and not righteous. All of them are unrighteous (but believers are called righteous in the Scriptures) all of them do not understand (but we have been given understanding from God) none of them seeks for God (but those who accept God’s Word will seek for Him), all of them are deceivers (but Christians are not deceivers even though we are called this – 2 Cor. 6:8), none of them does good, but those who trust in God will do good, they are filled with cursing and bitterness, and destruction is in their path (but those who know their God will do exploits and they are on the path or righteousness), and they have not known peace (but we know peace as we have peace with God). This is not talking about all those are unregenerate as many have come to fear God and to seek for Him just as He commanded. But the fool who says there is no God is just like this. He curses and has bitterness in his heart because he doesn’t believe that there is anyone to be held accountable to.
No, Paul is not making the quote from the Psalms to say something that is the complete opposite of the context of atheist fools who have no peace, goodness, or righteousness. Rather Paul is comparing both Jewish and Gentile fools who do not fear God, to us who do fear God and who seek Him and find Him.
Yes, Paul is talking about exactly what the writer of the Psalms was talking about. He was talking about the fools who refuse to obey God and who even deny His existence. They neither seek Him nor seek His righteousness. And no, not all are like this. Abraham was not like this, Noah was not like all the others and neither was Job. Even God’s own testimony is that Job was not like so many others.
You said:
If every single person is like this, then God lied because God said that Job is not like that. Are you really going to make God into a liar or will you admit that Paul isn’t using the quote from Psalms out of context and in a whole different meaning than the author of Psalms meant?
What I don’t understand if why you want to make us incapable of seeking God when God shows very clearly that unregenerate people can and must seek Him. Why do you do this?
Cheryl,
Thanks so much for your moderate and amiable reply!
Although we may not agree on every point concerning the nature of fallen humanity, we can certainly agree that civility and the free exchange of ideas without rancor goes a long way as a positive example to the non-Christian world.
Greg,
This is important to me too. I have seen way too much of Christians accusing their brothers of heresy over minor differences in doctrine or calling them names because of these disagreements. While we are free to defend our own doctrine with passion, when we turn around and deride the character of our brother merely for disagreeing with us, or assign them to hell for taking a diffewrent position on a debatable matter that is not essential to the gospel, we look like a bunch of misfits in the Christian family. But when non-Christians can see us accepting each other in love while having our differences, it is one of the best ways to show the difference that Jesus makes. Eventually I hope to see us all united. If it doesn’t happen in this lifetime, it will in the next.
Cheryl,
I’m quite astonished really. What makes Noah righteous? His own free-will? No I don’t think so. Was it not his faith?
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
You see, it was his faith that made him righteous. And like Eph 2 says faith is a gift. By the way you have not dealt with why the faith in Eph 2 is only for some believers. Gen 6:5 can be taken to mean everyone-it should. We are all by nature corrupt and evil. It is only faith in God which makes us righteous. This whole idea that humanity are essentially good people is non-sense. We are sinful and we have a Holy God who does not tolerate sin.
“Um, where does the Bible say that we need a new heart in order to seek after God?”
Here is one passage
Eze 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,
Eze 11:20 that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
This is at the heart of the new covenant. A new spiritual heart enables us to obey God.
I can’t see your point in referencing Deut because it actually proves my point. In Deut 10 God calls on the people to circumcise their hearts, but they can’t by themselves.They don’t actually do it. Deut 30 (if you actually looked at the context) is a prophetic word about what is going to happen after the exile. It will be God who does the circumcision of the heart. This is the new covenant. See Jer 31:31ff also. So you have just proven my point. We can’t give ourselves a heart of flesh, only God can and only God does with the new covenant.
“There is nothing at all in the Scriptures that I have seen that says God must give us a new heart before we can seek Him.”
Look more at the context of Deut as a whole. Look at the failure of the Jews to keep the covenant in their own strength. Look at Jeremiah 31, Ezekial 11, and also Ezekial 36.
Eze 36:24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.
Eze 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
Eze 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
This is another prophecy of the New Covenant. God gives a new heart of flesh. God gives his Spirit so that we can obey God’s statutes. This was the problem with the Jews, they did not have a heart of flesh. They did not have the outpouring of the Spirit to enable them to keep covenant. We do only because God acts first.
“Where does the Bible say that Cornelius was born again before he heard the gospel?”
You can’t keep copping out and saying everything is human tradition Cheryl, it’s hardly convincing. Now about Cornelius, did God do something before he accepted the message of salvation from Peter? Did he have a vision, did he see an angel of God? Did he not experience all this before he heard the gospel. Yes he did. This is God working before the message of Jesus was even preached. This is the issue. Does God intervene in people’s lives before they hear the message so that they may believe. According to Acts 10 yes, aswell as the rest of the New Testament. Although the words ‘born again’ are not used here by Luke does not mean that God did not work in Cornelius before he accepted the message.
The kingdom of God is twofold Cheryl. It came in Jesus, but it is still yet to come until the final consummation. This is the now/not yet tension. I would have thought you would have learnt that in your studies. So we enter the kingdom of God when we are saved into Jesus name, but we are still waiting to enter it entirely when we go to eternity. You have not dealt with John 3 at all. John 3 is clear that we are to be born again BEFORE we see or enter the kingdom of heaven. How can this be if it is after salvation?
“First of all, not every heart is stone. Those who harden their hearts against God’s call will eventually turn their heart to stone, but not all harden their hearts. Many will respond with gladness to His call.”
So what is Ezekial 36:26 referencing then if not everybody? I’m afraid you are going to have to deal with the fact that God hardens hearts aswell.
Rom 9:18 So then he (God) has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
I agree that many will respond with gladness, but I reject that they do this on their own without God opening their eyes to the message.
“It would be a cruel act for God to command men everywhere to seek Him if He was the One deliberately stopping them from seeking Him.”
Unfortunately Cheryl I hear this a lot. And the reason people say it is because they want God to fit into their picture of what God is. The Bible though is radically different. Romans 9 is clear on God’s election and calling. Paul even expects an objection like the one you just stated. What is his answer?
Rom 9:13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
There are a few very important points here. Our salvation DOES NOT depend on human will or exertion, BUT on God’s mercy alone. God hardens whom he wants and has mercy on whom he wants. When people object to this (like you Cheryl), Paul’s answer is simple, who are you to talk back to God. We have no right to say what is just and unjust, we are the clay and God is the potter.
So maybe you do therefore think God is cruel. That is for you to work out, but you can’t keep trying to fit God only into your own box of what love and mercy are. I challenge you to think that one through a little more. And please don’t attempt to say that Romans 9 is not saying what it seems to be saying. Exegetically it is, and those scholars who attempt to change it’s meaning simply look ridiculous.
Cheryl,
“Dead” is a metaphor.”
I don’t disagree that dead is a metaphor and that they can do all those things listed. Our focus though, is can people who are ‘dead IN SIN’ seek or come to God according to their own free will without the grace of God to draw them? No they can’t, because they need to be ‘born-again’!We are dead! We need to be made alive again and Ephesians saids that only God can do that, not us.
“Of course. Who is teaching that we ourselves can accomplish the miracle of re-birth? Who is teaching that we make ourselves alive? It isn’t me”
But you are saying that being re-born comes after our salvation which is done ONLY in OUR faith. Therefore you are saying we as humans do something BEFORE God makes us re-born. This is reject because it is making salvation based on our work of faith, not God’s gift of faith.
“My question – why do you do that?”
I have never said that you believe that the work of being re-born is not a work of God. Where my problem lies is that you think that faith is not a gift of God for all believers. Therefore when people accept Christ, it is their faith not God’s gift of faith that saves them. This is works salvation. Perhaps you can clear it all up. Is faith something we add to salvation in that it is not a gift of God, or is the faith that saves us a gift of God? Which do you believe? Being re-born is a side issue really. I have no doubt you believe it is God’s work, but that is because you seem to be saying it happens after faith. I believe it happens before faith and John 3 teaches that. Is the faith that justifies us God’s gift or is it our own free-will? This I want to know?
Here lies the problem- you say
“The “gift” is salvation which is completely a work of God”
I agree that salvation is the complete work of God. But how is it that we are saved? Like you said- through faith, yet you are not including ‘faith’ in the complete work of salvation, namely this ‘gift’. Therefore you are not seeing salvation as the complete work of God, because the very means by which we are saved (faith) is not a work of God but man. You confirm your mishap by saying
“I am on solid grounds exegetically and the “gift” is not “faith” but the action verb “salvation” of which action only God can be source of.”
So it appears that you are giving lip service to the complete salvation of God, yet are actually denying it by saying the very means by which we are saved is not a work of God. Salvation is not a complete work of God by what you have said. Sure you believe God saves people but only if they add to it by their faith. Can you also address whether repentance is our own work or is it something God grants? These are vital questions because this is at the heart of the gospel.
“If every single person is like this, then God lied because God said that Job is not like that. Are you really going to make God into a liar or will you admit that Paul isn’t using the quote from Psalms out of context and in a whole different meaning than the author of Psalms meant”
How long will you misinterpret the Bible Cheryl? You are pulling chickens out of hats to come to the conclusion that Romans 3 is not talking about Original Sin. The problem with your understanding is that you think people can be rightous apart from the work of God. This is the core of the issue. You think Noah, Abraham, Job are righteous people because in their own free-will they seek and worship God. If Noah was ‘righteous’ according to your definition why did he get drunk? If Abraham was righteous in his own free-will why did he lie and deceive people? If Job was righteous because of what he did why did God rebuke him at the end of the book. After all Paul says that if we break just 1 law we break all the law. How can these men be ‘righteous’ when they are sinful? I don’t think you understand what the old testament means when someone is righteous at all! It is faith which justifies us- declares us righteous. It was faith which made these men be called ‘righteous’. Now faith is either a gift of God or it is a work of man. It has to be the former otherwise we preach a works based gospel. This is simple fact. Unless faith is a gift that God bestows on us it is something we add to our salvation. How can you skirt around that massive issue.
“What I don’t understand if why you want to make us incapable of seeking God when God shows very clearly that unregenerate people can and must seek Him. Why do you do this?
I don’t want to say anything except what the bible teaches. It teaches that we are incapable of saving ourselves by seeking God or having our own free-will faith. I agree that we are called to seek God but we are sinful, we live in darkness, we love the darkness, we suppress the truth, and therefore we are judged for it. It is only in God’s mercy that he opens the eyes of his sheep to the message of salvation in order to save them.
By the way I don’t think Paul twisted scripture at all. He expanded on the nature of our depravity to the Romans. Abraham, Noah and Job were ungodly men because they were children of wrath as descendents of Adam, yet they were declared righteous by faith- they were not perfect people. You also have to remember that the Old Testament looked forward to the coming of Jesus. Jesus himself applied many scriptures to himself away from the original context, but I’m sure you don’t accuse him of twisting scripture. You are inconsistent Cheryl with your concerns and comments.
Greg and Cheryl,
I am amazed that you think that the nature of sin is a non essential in our scriptures. It affects everything- what we understand about God, grace, salvation. I’m sure this is clear by the conversation we have been having. What we understand as salvation is adversely affected when we don’t understand the nature of sin. I disagree with both of you. This whole political correctness stuff is culture not bible- it is postmodernity. Paul is very clear in Galations 1 that anyone who preaches a different gospel will be eternally condemned. Let’s start taking the bible a bit more seriously and the warnings in it. This is at the heart of an essential in the Christian gospel
one last note…
i really would like you to explain to me how you pray for non-believers. Do you believe it is God who opens their eyes and softens their hearts or not?
P.S I am only going to discuss these issues for as long as you want to Cheryl since i am fully aware of your earlier comments about it all. When you no longer wish to discuss it, that is fine, just let me know. I know we are a fair way from the original topic of this post.
#97 Mark,
I am going to answer the above comment first because my answer should help Mark and others to know the background of where I am coming from.
Mark, although you said that you believe that non-Calvinists can be Christians, in actuality you deny that by the above remarks. You see, the gospel is not a secondary issue of faith. It is an essential of the faith. If you create an addition to that gospel by saying that one must believe that saving faith is not our own faith in God’s Word but a gift that God gives only to the elect, then you are dividing the body of Christ by making anyone who does not agree with you as ones who do not believe the gospel. And if we do not believe the true gospel, which apparently only Calvinists can believe, then we how can we be true Christians? It is inconsistent to that one can be a true Christian and yet not believe the gospel.
This division is a sin that Calvinists bring against their brothers and sisters in Christ. By defining the gospel as something other than what is clearly stated as the gospel, Calvinists set their Christian brothers and sisters outside of the Christian camp and in need of conversion to Calvinism in order to believe the gospel and be saved.
In the past I was a part of a church that was split because of the issue of Calvinism. The church I belonged to was not a Calvinist church but the new pastor who came into the church was on his way to being a full blown Calvinist and when he decided that only Calvinism was the truth, he pressured the church to accept his doctrine. Those who balked at his teaching that God justly sends unborn babies go to hell to pay for their “sins” by suffering for all of eternity, those ones were singled out as dangerous to the church for not going along with “the truth” that is embodied in Calvinism.
It wasn’t long before mature Christians were threatened with letters to kick them out of the church for not accepting Calvinism. There was no longer love for the brethren in their differences. It was his way or the highway. Since God was taught as arbitrary in His decision on who would be created to go to Heaven and who would created to go to hell, this pastor had no hesitation to act like an arbitrary “god” in removing brothers and sisters in Christ merely for quoting Scripture in the Bible studies with verses that did not agree with his Calvinistic viewpoint. After all, if they didn’t accept Calvinism were they really one of the elect? That is the reasoning that this doctrine ends with when pushed to its logical conclusion and it was acted out in my old church. Without any appearance of conscience the pastor broke all the rules of the constitution in order to try to remove from fellowship mature Christians, some of whom had been there when the church building was first built in the 1970’s. The additional truth that he had accepted as necessary for the “gospel” divided brothers and sisters in Christ.
God hates this division. Those attenders whom the pastor convinced that they were now Calvinists because they believed that God pulled at their heart and brought them to the place of faith were confused. They didn’t even understand the basics of Calvinism nor the volumes of work written to explain the entire system of Calvinism, but they were taught that the believers who would not be converted were the enemy and unless he removed them from the fellowship, God’s “truth” could not progress.
I have seen the destruction of Calvinists first hand who destroy their brothers for the sake of their love of a doctrine. I refuse to say that Calvinists are not brothers in Christ or that Calvinists do not believe in the gospel, but I also refuse to allow them to divide the body of Christ and destroy those for whom Christ died. Some of the church members were so traumatized by the lack of love by the pastor and the tearing apart of the church for the sake of a “doctrine”, that a handful of people ended up in the hospital with various types of stress related diseases and symptoms that took months to resolve.
So, Mark, while I welcome you here and I will allow areas of Calvinism to be debated when they deal with the issues of women in ministry (i.e. Adam and sin nature), I will not tolerate the charge that the gospel that I believe is not the Biblical gospel. The gospel that I and other non-Calvinists believe is not different than what you believe because there is only one gospel. If you want to add Calvinist distinctives to the gospel, then you have stepped out on a limb – a very precarious limb.
It is the death of Jesus, his burial and resurrection that is the heart of the gospel. We can debate the issue of whether faith is a gift of God or a response of man, but it is not listed in the gospel as an essential belief. If you divide over this and accuse your brothers and sisters of not believing the gospel because we do not believe that saving faith is a gift of God given to only a select few unregenerate people, then you are going to have to answer to God one day for what you have done. Jesus Christ takes a dim view of those who divide the church over the non-essentials.
A factious man is literally a “heretic” one who causes divisions in the body.
And Romans 16:17 warns us to keep an eye on those who bring divisions into the body of Christ:
The term “dissensions” means division.
So once again to repeat, I will allow any challenge of my position regarding the issues of women in ministry including issues of Calvinism on the issue of sin, but I will not allow division by calling Christian brothers and sisters in Christ as non-believers in the gospel because they are not Calvinists. I am doing what Scripture advises me to do to keep any eye on those who are divisive and who bring harm to the body. Argue passionately, sure. But don’t attack your brothers and sisters in Christ and demand that they become Calvinists or else they don’t believe the gospel.
I am trying to be as gracious as I can while drawing a line in the sand and I hope I have made myself clear. Thoughts?
Mark,
You said:
The NASB is far from a “dubious” translation. Let’s have a look at the Andersen-Forbes phrase marker analysis to see what the actual Hebrew says:
It agrees with the NASB so your point does not stand.
Cheryl,
I appreciate where you are coming from. But first of all i have never deemed myself a ‘calvinist’ because simply it puts me into a theological bucket i don’t want to be in. Nor have i said that you are from a differing theological tradition e.g Arminianism. I’m more interested in the Bible rather that which side we sit on.
I truly do believe that non-calvinists are Christians. Like i said, reformed theology is something i have studied and over time been thoroughly convinced of, but i would never have said that i wasn’t a Christian before then. We all grow in our understanding and walk with God over our life times. However i do have a problem with so called ‘scholars’ when they outright reject biblical authority and truth. We all need to be open to change, be teachable and to have a desire to know the truth. My problem lies when people sit on the fence and simply say it is a matter of hermeneutics as if we can’t search for the truth.
In my experience most Christians i know would not be labelled as calvinists, but i love and respect them as the family of God. My issue rises when the people who should know better (scholars) outright reject or re-interpret the bible and lead people astray. Most people on the pews wouldn’t even know the difference, but it’s the leaders who do. Sure we all agree that Jesus is the only way to the Father, but what we believe about faith will radically change our perceptions of everything else. We need to get the gospel right first before we can get anything else right. I have yet to be convinced how we are not adding to our salvation by saying faith is not a gift of God. SInce this is the core of our beliefs as protestants i think it is vitally important to discuss. You cannot simply say that faith is not a gift without explaining why therefore it is not a works based gospel. Like i said, Paul is very clear on false gospels so we should work very hard at making sure we get it right.
Division is not the ideal i agree, and i’m sorry you have suffered with your church, but you can’t therefore label all calvinists in the same basket with the same issues and motives. As someone who is openly expressing your views on a blog, you should be willing to be thoroughly challenged. You are teaching people whether that is your intention or not, and when i feel that you are wrong i will say so. When i feel the gospel is at stake i will say so. If that makes you uncomfortable, then there is nothing i can do. With what you have said i feel strongly that the core of the gospel is at stake. You say you believe in a non-works salvation, then please show me why and how.
Also please notice that the warnings about division in the church is becasue of false teaching. We are urged to be sound in our doctrine and guard it. We can’t succome to every single doctrine just to keep unity in our churches. There is only one gospel, one message of salvation and we ought to keep it, not be wishy washy about it.
Look forward to your answers to my questions.
P.S
I’m wondering what you do with Psalm 51 Cheryl in relation to original sin, particularly verse 5.
Psa 51:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet went to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions.
Psa 51:2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!
Psa 51:3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.
Psa 51:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Mark,
You said:
I didn’t need to “forget to mention” the previous verse because I am not disputing that God uses many things to make people reconsider their need for Him. But the issue is not whether God works, but whether unregenerate people can see God.
So once again the Scriptures I quoted stand unrefuted.
That is another thing where Calvinists misunderstand non-Calvinists. Who on earth is claiming that we can come to God without His drawing us? Not me. No one can come to God without Him drawing them. The difference between us is not that one believes man has the power to come to God on his own terms, because I don’t believe that. The difference is that I believe God is willing to draw all men to Himself while you believe that God predeterminately selects only a few unregenerate to draw them to Himself without any conditions and without any faith on their own behalf.
This is not the issue since I have already agreed that God must draw people. The issue is whether one must be born again first become one can seek for God. The Bible never says that a person is changed from an unregenerate person into a born again person and then and only then can he seek God.
A relationship with Jesus is never called “the kingdom of God”. It is called “knowing” Him.
On the contrary, the term “the kingdom of God” is something that Christians will enter into in the future. It is not a term of relationship. I do notice that many times you give your own ideas but you don’t quote the Scriptures. I submit it is because there are no Scriptures to support your view and so you have nothing to document from the Bible.
Born again is a supernatural act of God where ones heart is changed from the nature of the “old man” to the nature of the second adam.
We are born of the Spirit when we are saved. The Jailer asked how he could be saved and Paul and Silas didn’t say to him that he must be saved already (born again) if he is asking the question. Rather they told him that he must believe in order to be saved.
We circumcise our own heart by our repentance but this doesn’t save us. Only God’s work that is done by condition of our repentance and faith will bring salvation. Those who repented and believed God in the OT were promised that they would be given God’s covenant.
For the OT saints who feared God, they were promised that the son of righteousness will arise for them on that day that the Lord is preparing and for those who fear Him, they will belong to God as His own possession.
All those who belonged to the Father through their fear of Him and their faith were promised the covenant and they were given to Jesus.
Everyone who belongs to the Father will come to Jesus.
No, not at all because the new covenant is fulfilled in Jesus. All who belonged to the Father in the OT would be brought into the new covenant through Jesus.
Who is stealing the glory from God? You again greatly misunderstand. We cannot save ourselves. The new birth is the miracle working of God alone and we cannot work this miracle. It belongs to God alone.
To continue…
Mark,
You said:
Repentance may be “granted” but it is granted by allowing, enabling or helping one to repent.
Okay, that is all I can get to tonight. Will try to pick up where I left off sometime tomorrow providing God grants me the time.
Okay, I just happened to read this:
…so my answer should allow me to go to bed.
Faith is not a work. Faith is contrasted to works.
Now show me where in the Bible that man’s faith is called a “work”. If you cannot do that then would you please stop calling your sister in Christ one who believes in a works salvation. A works salvation is a heresy and no one who believes in works for salvation is saved.
If you need more I have some drawings I did for another Calvinist pastor that I can try to reproduce here. But first of all, do you job and either put up or shut up (a term used here in North America for proving your case. It isn’t meant to be offensive.) Prove that faith is considered a work in the Scriptures if it is not a “gift” of God. Go ahead. I will be waiting with baited breath.
It is another day and we will see how much we can get through today.
Mark,
You said:
Romans 8 does not contradict this at all. If you think it does, please show me where it says that we are children of God before we receive Jesus.
Does the Bible say that those who received Him are given the right to become children of God?
Does the Bible say that we are sons of God through faith? Or are we sons of God without any regard to our faith?
Now I ask you to show me one verse that says we are born again without faith. You have not done so and if you can please do. show it to me.
Sure. But we are not “born again” before have faith. That isn’t scriptural.
Sorry, but this isn’t true. We are not “God’s children” before the world was created. Before we came to faith we were enemies of God not children of God.
I already realize that. The question is not what I was before I was born, but why. What was the condition that God foreknew me in Christ? We won’t be debating this because it goes off the topic of women in ministry, but know for sure that I agree with the Bible when the Bible plainly says something and when we need philosophy and human reasoning to give reason for things that God is silent on, I do not accept man’s reasoning.
But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether you are born again before you have faith. And the Scriptural answer is “no”.
This shows a clear misunderstanding of the Sovereignty of God outside of Calvinism. You won’t find me saying that man is able to will himself as a Christian and doesn’t need God to draw Him. It is too bad that Calvinists think so little of our common Christian faith but seem to want to see other Christians as having a man centered gospel. It is a pity.
Oh brother! Why on earth you keep saying that I deny the Sovereignty of God is beyond me. It is like I say one thing and you turn it around to say I am denying the very thing I am fighting for. I am really curious. Why do you do that?
No it is not. Being born again is a miraculous work that transforms and renews and brings God’s life to a heart that was separated from God and lost in sin. It is opening of the eyes. It is a transformation.
And like I said, of course it is God who makes us alive in Him and it is not ourselves at all. But is this miracle something that happens before faith? Not according to the Scriptures.
You have said that before. Show me from the Scriptures that Cornelius became born again before he heard the message. And why would he need to hear the message if he was already born again?? He doesn’t need the message to be saved if he is already saved? Why is this reasoning so contradictory to the Scripture and never found explicitly in the Scriptures? I don’t accept it because I want Bible only not human reasoning.
Show me where it says that everything that an unbeliever does that is not in faith is a sin? And how can an unbeliever do anything in faith? Wouldn’t that make him a believer? The context never mentions unbelievers so you just slip them in. Now show me a context that talks about unbelievers and how everything they do is sin even if it is a good work. Go ahead. I will wait patiently for your verses.
You haven’t shown me a verse that includes unbelievers. And can you imagine Jesus saying to the Pharisees, that even though they are evil, they can do good, but they shouldn’t even try to do good, because any good they do is really just sinning more and more. So maybe Jesus would be telling these Pharisees to keep on sinning more and more because it is less offensive to God than if they are helpful and kind to their families. God just hates kind unbelievers, right?
God gives us two options and never just one. We can seek Him or we can reject Him.
And Jesus promised that those who seek will find.
Now show me a verse that says that God will only allow some to seek Him and Him and most He will purposely stop them from seeking Him and purposely stop them from finding Him although He demands that they seek Him? Go ahead and show me where only some are enabled to seek God.
No. Romans 1:18 doesn’t say that all men suppress the truth. But the passage says that those who deliberately suppress the truth, God gives them up. Here is a description of them:
Are you in this group? Were you given up to degrading passions and did you burn in your desire for other men? No? Then this passage is not about all people, but about those who purposely suppress the truth. I didn’t do that and likely you didn’t either.
If faith is not a work, then man’s faith is not a work either.
You just contradicted yourself. You said that faith is not a work, then you said that our faith is a works based salvation. Either faith is a work or it is not.
Secondly we cannot have faith without God for we cannot even have faith in God without Him drawing us. I don’t know anyone who is teaching that faith exists independent of God working on us an drawing us to Himself. That is true faith. It is a response to God’s work. It is not a gift that God gives arbitrarily to a few. It is a response not a gift.
I am not skirting around the issue. I am answering every one of your questions. Before I take a stab at convincing you that I am not promoting a works based salvation, please show me from the Scripture where a man’s faith is a work. i.e. Abraham believed God is Abraham’s faith in God’s revelation. The text doesn’t say that God gave Abraham the gift of faith, but rather Abraham believed God’s word. Where is the accusation that Abraham was making this a works based faith?
The fact is that faith is the direct opposite of works. Every place it is mention in conjunction with works, it is in opposition to works except for the book of James where our works are necessary to show our faith to others. But our faith is never ever called a “work” to God.
Once again you are implying that I am a heretic and not a sister in Christ. Why do you do that?
I do not believe that works are required for salvation. In fact I believe that relying on works removes our faith. Our faith is the exact opposite works and not a single Scripture says that our faith is looked on by God as a work for salvation.
I am honestly tired of being called a heretic and then you trying to say that I am really a sister in Christ. You are confused at the seriousness of heresy.
Continuing on…
Mark, you said:
Look Mark, every piece of our salvation is from God. But regarding our faith, we are required to believe God. When God speaks and I believe God, how can I be considered to be working for my salvation? Scripture doesn’t say that faith is a gift of God to unbelievers. If so, please show me where it says this.
Rather, the faith that is a gift is always given by the Holy Spirit to believers.
I did an interesting study concerning Calvinism and I asked Calvinists how they got the “truth” of Calvinism and I was told in each case that it came from studying the works of Calvinists/Reformers. They didn’t just “get it” from reading the Word of God. Apparently some think that men’s books are necessary for God’s revelation because God’s Word isn’t plain enough without addition “helps”.
What I have seen from reading these books is a God who has mercy on so few yet the Scriptures tell me that God is rich in mercy.
And another thing I notice about the Scriptures is that God freely gives His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him.
I have not seen anyplace that says that God gives the “gift” of fear to some men. Rather, people respond to the revelation of God with godly fear and God responds with His awesome lovingkindness.
Should we say that those who “fear God” are doing a works based salvation? Should we say that God gives the “gift” of fear to some? No. Fearing God is faith in God and it is our response, not a gift reserved for an elite few.
Cheryl,
It appears that we disagree on being born again. Let me just state what i think it is and what i think it isn’t.
Being born again is not being saved. Being born again is being made alive when we are dead in our sins, so that we may have faith and believe in Jesus and then be saved. Being born again happens before salvation not after. John 3 shows this like i said. It is the supernatural work of God opening our eyes when we are dead in sin to enable us to accept the message of salvation.
I’m glad you believe that God draws people to Himself. But i can’t understand how you believe God draws every single person to himself. You quoted Jn 6:37 which says that all the father gives to Jesus will come to him. Does the father give every single person to Jesus? or a limited number? You have already said you reject a doctrine of universalism so what is Jn 6 saying? What about Matt 11:27, when Jesus says no-one knows the Father except the Son and those whom the Son CHOOSES to reveal him. This is not for everybody. God only draws those whom he chooses to reveal his Son too.
Now about the kingdom of God- this amazes me since you say that the kingdom is only future. And you criticize me for not giving biblical references infering there is none. Well here we go…
John the baptist saids
Mat 3:2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Now is he talking about heaven Cheryl?
Jesus after giving the parable of the sower saids to his disciples
Mat 13:18 “Hear then the parable of the sower:
Mat 13:19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path.
What is the word of the kingdom? Is it only something future?
Again Jesus saids
Mat 13:24 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field,
Again with the parable of the mustard seed
Mat 13:31 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field.
Mat 13:32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”
Mat 13:33 He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.”
I could go on and on. Just look at Matt 13. The kingdom of Heaven (God) has come in Jesus, but is still waiting to be fully revealed at his second coming.
See Matt 18:23; 19:14, 23-24; 20:1
There are so many references to the kingdom of God that I simply cannot go through them all, but to say the kindom is only future is a big mistake. Therefore that is why Jn 3 is so clear that we need to be born again before we can even see or enter the kingdom. You have a wrong understanding of the kingdom and a wrong understanding of being born again.
Finally iwould just like to address the issue of faith.
I agree 100% that faith is not a work contrasted to works. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone to the glory of God alone. Now you asked me to show you where the bible says that faith is a work. Now this is just silly, because we both agree it isn’t. If I believed faith (as outlined) in the bible was a work we wouldn’t even have this conversation. What I believe is that those who say faith is not a gift of God are making saving faith into a work.
Now saving faith is a gift says Eph 2. It is a gracious gift of God, so that no one can boast. You have made a bold claim in saying that the faith outlined in Eph 2 is not for every believer and I have asked you to show me why, but you haven’t. Therefore to deny that saving faith is in itself not a gracious gift of God necessitates that it is something we do without the help of God. This therefore is a work since it comes from our doing and not God’s.
You cannot say that the faith that saves us is not a gift of God, unless you can prove biblically how this is not a work of man to earn salvation. If we say that it is our own faith (with no gift from God) then we have every reason to boast since we have chosen wisely when others have not. This I reject. I have done nothing greater than anybody- God has simply shown me grace in giving me his gift of salvation and faith. I have nothing to boast in of myself, I can only boast in God’s mercy. Now also since repentance is required for salvation and as 2 Tim 3 says even that is a gift of God, no-one can repent nor have faith unless God grants it to them otherwise they have room to boast of their own salvation.
Cheryl please show why the saving faith outlined in Eph 2 is not for every believer. Please explain how you can have faith (which is not a gift from God) and it not be a work. If it does not stem from God then it is something we do correct?
Mark,
You said:
Seeking God is searching for Him and wanting desperately to know Him. Coming to God is having a relationship with Him.
Mark,
It looks like you and I are online at the same time for once. Welcome buddy! I am going to answer your last set of questions now and catch up on the others just because you are here…now.
You said:
Mark, it isn’t a matter of what we “think” being born again is, but what the Scriptures say it is. Is being born again making a corpse live?
From this scripture, we can see that the birth that Jesus is talking about is the birth “of the Spirit”. It is something brand new. Something that wasn’t there before, but is now born “of the Spirit”.
Jesus is talking to an unsaved man and reasoning through the Scriptures with Him. Jesus didn’t say to him that he can’t believe in Him until he is born again. He doesn’t say that there will be no faith until you are born again. And Jesus doesn’t say to him that you are dead. Jesus reasons with him as one who is capable of understanding. In verse 7 Jesus says “do not be amazed”. Jesus said “truly truly I say to you…” If the dead man could not hear Him, it was a waste of Jesus time to preach the gospel to him. Jesus was given this unregenerate man reason to believe in Him.
Another great passage is in 1 Peter 1:
Here we see that being born again is tied into the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and being born again makes one an heir of God. We can also see in verse 5 by being born again is tied to salvation through faith. It is never something that belongs to an unregenerate man. No person is born again who is not an heir of salvation at their rebirth. No person is born again who is not there “through faith”. Being born again is inseparably connected to our salvation and our inheritance so that it is absolutely impossible for an unbeliever to be born again.
This is the heart break of Calvinism that teaches that unsaved people are “born of the Spirit”. Those who are unbelievers cannot know the new birth nor can they know the One who gives the new birth.
Mark, I ask you, was Jesus wrong? Can the world (unbelievers) receive the Spirit of truth through the new birth? He said that the Holy Spirit cannot be received by the world. An unbeliever cannot know the Holy Spirit or experience Him (which is knowing Him). It is impossible for the new birth to come through unbelief. It is only by faith by believing God because an unbeliever cannot know the Holy Spirit.
Also:
Being born again is not bringing to life a dead person, but it is a new life through a new “seed”. It is reviving the old, but giving something new. The “seed” of God is never within an unbeliever.
And lastly:
Here John talks about being born again as one “born of God” as His “seed” within us. John makes a big deal about this “seed” of God within us so much so that those who are “born of God” with His seed cannot continue to sin because he has been reborn. Does this fit unbelievers? Do they have God’s “seed” within them?
Now I ask you – where does it say that those who have God’s seed within them are not saved? Where does it say that they are just brought to life but without faith and without salvation?
Mark,
You said:
No, Mark, God reasons with us with His own word and this enables us to believe. God reasoned with Nicodemus. Why did He do this? Can a dead man believe according to Calvinism? Was Nicodemus already born again? Then why did he show that he had not yet believed?
Mark, have you been born again? Did this happen while you were an unbeliever? If so, then how did you know that you were born again?
“Show me where it says that everything that an unbeliever does that is not in faith is a sin? And how can an unbeliever do anything in faith? Wouldn’t that make him a believer?”
😉
Mark,
You said:
Drawing is not the same as “coming”. God draws all, but He doesn’t make all come.
Is there any reason why I should doubt Jesus? If He said that He will draw all men to Himself, then He certainly didn’t fail to do what He prophesied.
No. The Father does not give every single person to Jesus. The Father only gives those who belong to Him. He gives none that don’t belong to Him. They are the ones in the Father’s hand.
They belonged to the Father and they kept the Father’s Word:
Now, Mark, I would like to reason with you from the Scriptures. Did God give believers in God or unbelievers to the Son? And did God give those who hated God to the Son?
John 6 is a repeat of something that the Father already prophesied in the OT.,
Jesus is God’s covenant. Those who fear God will be brought to the new covenant in Jesus.
John 6 says that all those who already belonged to the Father (those who feared God) were given to Jesus. It is all about believers. God gives these believers into the safe keeping of Jesus and He will lose none of them.
Sure. And who does Jesus choose to reveal the Father to?
In Jesus’ high priestly prayer, Jesus reveals who He chooses to reveal the Father to:
Jesus reveals the Father only to believers.
No. God draws all, but He only gives those to Jesus the ones that belong to Him. Don’t you see the difference, Mark? How can God give to Jesus those who do not belong to Him?
Kay, I love your smilie!! Glad someone else is following this post. I wasn’t sure if anyone would be interested in this side discussion.
“Mark, have you been born again? Did this happen while you were an unbeliever? If so, then how did you know that you were born again?”
Cheryl,
Perhaps you can unmuddled something for me – if a person believes in calvinist “total depravity” of the human intellect, how can they ever be certain that they are actually born again? How can they even be certain about their own “total depravity?”
1. “No. Romans 1:18 doesn’t say that all men suppress the truth. But the passage says that those who deliberately suppress the truth, God gives them up. Here is a description of them:
Romans 1:26–27 (NASB)
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Are you in this group? Were you given up to degrading passions and did you burn in your desire for other men? No? Then this passage is not about all people, but about those who purposely suppress the truth. I didn’t do that and likely you didn’t either.”
Why stop at verse 27 Cheryl…let’s keep going
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom 1:32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Surely you and I have both coveted, surely we have both been slanderers and gossips and boastful etc. This is the nature of humanity not just one specific group. Sexual sins are just one aspect of our fallen humanity. We are depraved creatures- totally. You are wrong to say this is just one specific group of people. Isaiah 53:6 sums it up nicely- we all like sheep have gone astray and turned to our own ways.
I can’t show you that Cornelius was born again- I don’t deny that. But not every conversion in the bible says ‘and they were born again before they believed’. We don’t always have every detail for every occasion. The problem is though to say that we don’t need to be born again contradicts Jn 3, and contradictions are not acceptable. You have swept it away be changing what born again means and what the kingdom is.
Now about being a child of God. I have agreed with you that we are children of God once we believe. However like I said Romans 8 and Eph 1 also talk about this being God’s choice or plan before the foundation of the world. So although we were enemies of God before believing, we were always planned to be children of God. Our union with Christ has been layed down from the beginning. Do you understand what I mean?
You still haven’t answered how you pray for your un christian friends- you dodged it. Also please explain your idea of God’s sovereignty? Do you believe God is sovereign in that he made himself vulnerable in creating the world like many do?
You said “No it is not. Being born again is a miraculous work that transforms and renews and brings God’s life to a heart that was separated from God and lost in sin. It is opening of the eyes. It is a transformation.”
Now the funny thing is I agree with this. We are lost in sin, we are dead. We are totally seperated from God. Therefore how do we accept the message of salvation. It is interesting that you say it is opening of the eyes. Look what I said just before you said ‘No it is not”
Being ‘born-again’ is God opening their eyes to the message of the cross.
Inconsistency??? You can’t say to me I’m wrong and then in your definition say the same thing. I’m confused. If you truly believe your description how then can people still accept the message of salvation without being born again? You keep saying that being born again before faith is unscriptural yet you have not dealt with Jn 3. Perhaps we should discuss that more?
Let me get something straight. You agree that Romans 14 is saying in the context of believers that everything not done in faith is sin? Yet you disagree that unbelievers (who have no faith in Christ) are not doing everything in sin. Here is my opinion for what it is worth. Everything any of us does is sin unless God gives us grace. It is only be grace that unbelievers do good things. It is only by grace that believers do good things- this is common grace to all of us. People can do good things (like the Pharisees) because God is gracious to them. However it is still not done in faith in God.
“God just hates kind unbelievers, right?”
I don’t believe God hates unbelievers. Ezekial 18:23 tells us that he does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. But we must remember God is Holy. When we sin, we sin against a infinite Holy God. If we do not do things in faith then it is sin. This is why the fall of Adam and Eve was so disasterous.
1. “Now show me a verse that says that God will only allow some to seek Him and Him and most He will purposely stop them from seeking Him and purposely stop them from finding Him although He demands that they seek Him? Go ahead and show me where only some are enabled to seek God.”
I have agreed with you all along that we are all called to seek after God. But how can we as sinners. Again Romans 3 says none seeks after God. This is why we are held accountable. God demands that we seek him, but in our sinfulness we don’t. This is why Jesus words are so important.
Joh 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Only when God grants it, can sinners come to Jesus. We cannot seek God by ourselves. Now do you believe that God has granted EVERYONE in this verse to come to Jesus?
Also think about why Jesus spoke in Parables
Mat 13:11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
Mat 13:12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
Mat 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Mat 13:14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.
Mat 13:15 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’
Mat 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.
Mat 13:17 For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
A few important things here. He spoke in parables so people WOULD NOT understand, lest they turn. Also many prophets and RIGHTEOUS people longed to hear the truth of Jesus but did not. Not everyone is giving the same grace by God to seek after him. I wait for your reply since the bible clearly answers your challenge.
‘You just contradicted yourself. You said that faith is not a work, then you said that our faith is a works based salvation. Either faith is a work or it is not.’
Here is my conviction because you seem confused. Saving faith is a gift therefore faith is not a work. When we deny that saving faith is a gift, then we make it into a work. See the difference? Faith becomes a work for those who reject it as a gift of God.
Semi-pelagianism was condemned, that is reality. It denied that our salvation was fully the work of God. It denied that faith, repentance etc are the gracious gifts of God. It maintained that we as fallen people still have the capacity (with a little bit of God’s help but not all) to come after and seek God. It is the same old problem that the church has faced. How free-will and God’s sovereignty go hand in hand. Maybe you can clearly outline how you see salvation works? Give me a clear step by step outline of how and when God works and how and when human free-will works. Perhaps then I will understand more your view.
“Scripture doesn’t say that faith is a gift of God to unbelievers. If so, please show me where it says this.”
Eph 2 says that we were dead in sin. BUT, God made us alive in Christ. How? By grace you have been saved through faith- AND THIS IS NOT FROM YOURSELVES, it is a GIFT of God.
Faith is a part of our salvation process- it is the very means by how we are saved. If grace is a gift given to unbelievers in this verse, how is faith not also given to unbelievers?
“What I have seen from reading these books is a God who has mercy on so few yet the Scriptures tell me that God is rich in mercy.’
I agree that God is rich in mercy- none of us deserve to be saved, we have all fallen short of the glory of God have we not? But still only a limited number of people are saved. Even you believe this because you are not a universalist. You can’t discredit Calvinists because they believe that a limited number are saved. Any evangelical believes that, reformed or not.
“And another thing I notice about the Scriptures is that God freely gives His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him.”
I agree!
“Should we say that those who “fear God” are doing a works based salvation? Should we say that God gives the “gift” of fear to some? No. Fearing God is faith in God and it is our response, not a gift reserved for an elite few.”
If we say that fearing God saves us and that it is in our own strength, then yes it is works based. But the scripture never saids that. David is a great example of all this. He was a God fearing man, he worshiped God, he loved God. Yet he continually asked that God would enable him to do this. See Psalm 119. Here is just a snipet
Psa 119:33 Teach me, O LORD, the way of your statutes; and I will keep it to the end.
Psa 119:34 Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and observe it with my whole heart.
Psa 119:35 Lead me in the path of your commandments, for I delight in it.
Psa 119:36 Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!
Psa 119:37 Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things; and give me life in your ways.
Psa 119:38 Confirm to your servant your promise, that you may be feared.
Psa 119:39 Turn away the reproach that I dread, for your rules are good.
Psa 119:40 Behold, I long for your precepts; in your righteousness give me life!
David didn’t trust in his own fear or faith or ability. He knew all these things were the gift of God. He prayed to his Father that God may continue to bless him with those things. This is the reformed position in a nutshell. We look to God for everything, not trusting in our own strength, and we recognise that God grants things in his sovereign will to some and not others. But we dare never look to our own strength and ability nor should we think we know who God bestows his gifts too. That is for Him to know not for us to judge.
Anyway I need to take a break. I’l let you catch up before I comment again.
Ok one last point since it regards universal language
1. John 12:32 (NASB)
32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”
Is there any reason why I should doubt Jesus? If He said that He will draw all men to Himself, then He certainly didn’t fail to do what He prophesied.
I don’t think you should doubt Jesus. But I don’t think taking universal language the way you do is correct. After all Romans 5 says that Jesus justified ‘all’ men. Should we take that to mean every single person. Now I know your not a universalist so I’m sure you don’t, therefore why do you take Jn 12 to mean every single person in the world? Not only that but how does Jesus draw all the people in the world who have never heard about Him. Why should we bother reaching the unreached if Jesus has already drawn them? See the problem? We need to be careful when the bible uses universal language and not just pick and choose to fit our theology. For example here is a good one.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Do you think John’s intention here is that every single person in the world did not recognize or know Jesus. Surely not because we know from the gospels that people did. This is the problem with basing a theology on universal terms- you come across so many contradictions.
Now also about Jn 12:32 look closely at verse 33
Joh 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
Joh 12:33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.
If Jesus said this about his death, how can he draw every single person unless his intention was that his death brought atonement and salvation for every single person. This simply is not the case because not everyone is saved. I don’t believe this verse supports your argument at all. John is particularly a writer who uses universal language a lot, and many people bring contradictions into the text by adopting wrong conclusions on universal language.
After all we use universal language ‘all’ the time (that was a joke)
Let me see if I understand your view.
1. Jesus draws every single person in the world to himself
2. But not everyone comes to the Father
3. Those who come to the Father are those who are seeking/fear God and therefore believe.
I have a problem with this. Even in my own experience this doesn’t work. When I was saved I did not have any interest in seeking or knowing God. I do believe I was drawn by God to where I heard the message, but I did not go there because I was looking to be saved. But yes I do believe I was born again before I was saved. I believe the Spirit opened my eyes to that message when I was saved, even though I had no intention of becoming a Christian. I was dead in sin, but the Spirit opened my eyes .This is how God works- he softens hearts, opens eyes. This is what i pray for God to do in other people’s lives so that they may accept Jesus. I do not pray that they will just seek a little bit harder than others.
To me this is how God and grace works. God doesn’t reward those who are seeking him more than those who are not. This view gives us room to boast. I got salvation because I was seeking type of idea. I can’t by that. It’s contrary to the bigger biblical picture. We are saved purely by the mercy and grace of God. But maybe this isn’t how you see it/ Let me know
Mark,
You said:
kingdom of heaven Sure seems like he is talking about heaven to me.
The “word” is another way to say the gospel of the kingdom.
The “good news” of the kingdom is the message of the coming kingdom. The kingdom is still future, but the good news is spoken now.
Once again as your quote shows, this is about the kingdom of heaven. This is to come.
Mark 13:31-33 is also about the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 18:23 is about a future coming kingdom where the accounts are “settled”. Sure hasn’t happened yet.
Matthew 19:14 is also about a future kingdom.
Matthew 19:23, 24 is about entering the kingdom of “heaven”. This is future again.
Matt. 20:1 and following is about the kingdom of heaven and the reckoning that happens in the kingdom. That reckoning has not yet happened. Once again it is consistently in the future.
Let me be clear: The kingdom is future, but the preaching about the kingdom is now.
My friend, it is you who have a wrong understanding. No unregenerate person is ever said to be “born again” and no “unregenerate born-again person” is prepared for the kingdom of heaven. In fact the terms “unregenerate” and “born-again” are opposites. They cannot exist together.
In a classic passage about the future kingdom, Jesus talks about entering the kingdom and it is future “on that day”.
I wonder why you didn’t quote these verses? Is it because they are so obvious about a future judgment and a future entering into the kingdom that they cannot even be twisted to be about the here and the now?
And how about Matt 8:11?
This is the time that the OT saints looked forward to and it is clearly in the future where the dead OT saints have been resurrected.
In fact everything about the “kingdom of heaven” is so obviously in the future and not in operation on the earth.
Two last verses that are of note:
If the kingdom had already arrived, then why did Jesus teach his disciples to pray for God’s kingdom to come?
Ah Mark, my anti-spam word for this one is “friend”.
Then, my friend, why do you continue to say that I believe in a works based salvation when I believe in faith alone and not in works? Why do you at one time say that man’s faith is a work and then deny that faith is work?
I can only have a works based salvation if I am working for my salvation. Since I am saved solely by grace through my faith in God, it is impossible for me to have a works based salvation. How is it in your head that you can see faith=works and faith does not= works? This kind of reasoning is illogical.
This is illogical. Saving faith cannot be a work no matter where it comes from. Now it can be a very passionate discussion between us where saving faith comes from, but it is completely illogical to state that saving faith is a work. It is by definition incapable of being a work.
Now Mark, I have carefully gone through this piece by piece to show that the action of God which is the verb salvation is the “gift”. The rest only explains how the action is gifted to us “by grace” and “through faith”. Why do you ignore what I have written to keep insistent that Ephesians 2 says that it is “faith” that is the gift? By what basis do you hang your hat on this and where is your second witness to this important doctrine?
Mark, you must be very busy, because you are not taking the time to carefully read what I have written. I didn’t say that the faith outlined in Ephesians 2 is not for every believer. Instead it is 1 Cor. 12:9 where the faith listed as a gift is not given to every believer.
Mark, I understand that you are busy, but it is important to read what I have written and not assign a statement to me that was never said. Do you want to go at this slower so that you can better absorb my comments? After all it is very wise to first understand and then defend. Otherwise it is easy to get caught in misunderstandings which lead to false claims of heresy.
Mark,
You said:
Who is claiming that our faith is “without the help of God”? It isn’t me. We are required to believe, but God is the one who draws us so it is never without the help of God. When you say things like this, I wonder why you do this? Have you accepted a false view of non-Calvinism from those who wish to separate from their brothers and sisters in Christ?
This is illogical. You are defining faith as having nothing at all to do with us. Faith then is God’s belief in Himself that He gives to us. But God can’t believe for us and He cannot respond for us. If faith were someone else believing for you, then why can’t our faith save our brother?
I am defining faith as something that we do in response to God’s immense amount of work in our lives. It is a response that we give to God. It is demanded of us and only our own personal response is valid. God simply cannot believe for us.
Mark, we already defined saving faith as not a work. I don’t need to prove it isn’t a work because we have already both agreed that saving faith is not a work.
This is where you are wrong because it is not “saving faith” that is the cause for boasting. It is “salvation” that could be a cause for boasting if one worked for it. But since we already defined saving faith as not a work and since there is nothing that one can do to earn salvation, your comments are illogical.
One interesting note here is that Calvinsts often say that their faith in God’s gift of faith causes them alone to not have pride. Yet Calvinists regularly struggle with pride since their boast is that God picked them while rejecting others. In fact John Piper a famous Calvinist here in North America is taking 8 months off of ministry because of pride issues that have hurt his wife and others in ministry. My son met him last year and could see the pride in him while people were fawning over him. My son asked him about this and Piper poked his finger in my son’s chest. No pride there? Highly unlikely.
But for me knowing that God has drawn me to Jesus, He has paid the price that I could not even lift a finger to pay and that nothing I could do could earn salvation, leaves me nothing to have pride over. I am a sinner saved by God’s grace alone through God’s requirement that I believe Him. I have done that because God has proven Himself faithful. I can’t help by believe because His character is so awesome, His love so amazing and His grace so freely given that I have believed his word and fallen in love with Him because of who He is, not because of who I am of what I have done. That is Sovereign grace.
But for Calvinists you can boast that God loves you and doesn’t love a lot of others – at least not with saving love. I can’t say that for God was willing to have saving love for all because He sent Jesus to die for all. You can look around and say that in a crowd of unbelievers that God loved me more than He loved them. I am special to Him for whatever reason. While you may not know the reason why He chose you, the fact that He chose you and you are one of the elite elect chose out of all humanity makes you have lots to boast amongst those that God doesn’t love. Don’t you see how that could cause many like Piper to be prideful?
The Bible says that repentance is “granted” and God grants repentance to anyone who will fear Him. It is always conditional and it is always dependent on the faithfulness of God to make sure that no one who fears God is left without salvation.
I can have faith because God has shown Himself to me and revealed enough about Himself that I believe Him. It is God’s work to reveal Himself and God’s work to draw me and God’s work to save me. My faith is not a work because saving faith is never a work. It is the very opposite of works.
Mark, why have you been deceived to believe that saving faith is a work in some people when the Scriptures always set faith in opposition to works? Somebody has twisted your head around so that you do not even seen how you flip flop back and forth. “saving faith is a work” and “no, saving faith is not a work”. How could anyone accept Calvinism with this kind of inconsistency and illogical thinking?
#127 Kay,
You asked:
No one in that mindset can really know for sure. The biggest problem is that there is the teaching that God allows some of the unregenerate to merely believe that they are saved but since He doesn’t give them the “gift” of faith, their belief is really a deception. No one can know for sure, in this thinking, whether the faith that they have is an actual “gift” or if they are one of the deceived ones who only think they have saving faith. This is one of the heartbreaks of Calvinism that causes many to question their own salvation.
Frankly because of the teaching, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to say for sure if they are really one of the elect according to Calvinist doctrine. The only way that they will ever know for sure is if they persevere to the end. So until the day that they die or until the day that Christ comes, they can never really know for sure.
I listened to a debate with James White a Calvinist apologist and he was asked about the assurance of his own salvation. He would not answer that question but spoke about the assurance about other people’s salvation. In other words he turned the question around to be how can he know for sure that other people are saved? But that wasn’t the question that he was asked. However I can see that those who really know Calvinism and its teaching very well, do not claim that they can know for sure that they are one of the elect. They can only hope that they will persevere and not be one of those whom God has chosen to mock by giving them a fake belief that isn’t a saving faith. How very, very sad.
Mark,
Until only recently I was a life long Lutheran.
I go back far enough to remember the times when Lutheran Pastors wore the Cassock on High Holy Days, and you couldn’t tell Pastor Harzheim from Father Doyle the Jesuit.
When I began to investigate for myself what the scriptures say and what they do not say in light of God’s whole counsel, I could no longer believe in the doctrine of original sin nor in Luther’s repudiation of free will.
Religions of the Christian variety are nothing more than ideological belief systems based on varying intepretations of scripture, but they are certainly not “hills to die on”. When they become hills to die on, they strip us of our humanity.
Cheryl has never preached anything here at her blog but the good news of Jesus Christ, so I’ll sign off with the words of Jesus:
“…But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in…”
Hi Greg,
I didn’t remember that you were a Lutheran. What kind words you said on my behalf. Thank you!
Indeed it seems that there are spiritual leaders whose main purpose in life is to keep people away from the kingdom of heaven. I find this incredibly sad.
How did they do this? I will quote a couple of good commentaries on the sad state of the leadership of God’s people at the time of Christ:
Mark,
You said:
Noah was righteous in the same way that Job was. His faith made him righteous and his actions lined up with his faith.
Job as well as Noah had faith in God and feared God by turning away from evil.
But this faith was his response to God not a “gift” from God. Mark, let me ask you, is the fear of God a “gift” too?
Sorry, but it cannot mean everyone because one cannot have faith in God and fear God and act in a corrupt and evil manner. If this is universal, then please show me where Job acted in a corrupt and evil manner.
I too believe this is nonsense. But it is equally nonsense that unbelievers cannot do good deeds. We are not in bondage to the point that we cannot do good. If Jesus said that the evil Pharisees can do good deeds, then I chose to believe Jesus.
This passage is not talking “seeking” God. It is talking about having a relationship with God and obeying Him. Those who seek God have not yet found Him. So do you actually have a passage that says that man must have a new heart before he can seek God?
Circumcising of the heart is a two act process. The first part is man’s repentance and the passage shows this:
Notice that God links their circumcision to no longer “stiffening” of their neck? This circumcision is repentance and turning toward God. It is then that God does the inward circumcision and actually removes their sin. Repentance and the removal of sin always go together. God cannot repent for us and so repentance is our obligation. We cannot remove our sin so this is God’s obligation to remove the barriers to fellowship with Him.
You are right in that we can’t give ourselves a heart of flesh, but we can and must circumcise our hearts no longer stubbornly stiffening our necks towards God. When we repent, God is able and willing to give us that new heart. God never gives a new heart to unrepentant people for He cannot repent for us.
Mark, you are failing to even understand my statement. I am not talking about keeping God’s law. I am talking about “seeking” God. I asked you where the Scriptures say that we must have a new heart before we can even seek God. You not addressed this and you are making seeking God as the same thing as obeying God’s law. It is not the same.
Mark,
You said:
No it isn’t the issue. We agree that for a person to come to faith in Christ, God has to work in their life. But where we don’t agree is that you say that the miracle of the new birth happens before one comes to faith in Christ. I asked you to show this miracle of the new birth that happened to Cornelius before he heard the gospel message. Seeing an angel of God hardly qualifies. The miracle of the new birth is the seed of God born in us. Where is that in the text? Please show it to me?
Again, you are confusing God’s work in drawing a person with the experience of the new birth. Of course the text doesn’t say that Cornelius was born again before he heard the message because the new birth cannot happen before a person believes.
My friend, you are mistaken. The kingdom is not twofold. The kingdom will come in “that day” of the Lord. Rather the king came, not the kingdom. Jesus is very clear about that. He told Pilate that he is king, but he also said that his kingdom was not of this world. No two fold kingdom at all. Just a coming kingdom and a present reigning King.
We enter the kingdom of God only through Jesus. Paul makes this clear. We are “in” Christ. We are buried with him in his death and made alive with Him. And we are “seated” in the heavenlies with him. So our are only in the kingdom now because the King is in heaven and we are His body. But physically on this earth, we have yet to enter the kingdom. It is consistently a future event.
We are indeed in the heavenly kingdom now — spiritually because our “head” is there and we are indeed “in” Him.
I have consistently dealt with this passage showing that entering into the kingdom is future. But let me add one thing. If God had wanted this passage to say that we must be born again before we can be given the gift of faith and before we can be saved, He could easily have said that. He would not have had to mention a word about heaven for our salvation starts here.
But here is a big problem for you, according to your belief, being born again is not equal to being saved. So when the person is “born again” they are still unregenerate and unsaved. The next thing that happens is that God gifts this unrepentant person who is still not regenerated with the gift of faith. That means that God gives His gift of faith to an unbeliever and a reprobate man. They don’t have to believe God. They don’t even have to love God and they won’t because they are not regenerated through salvation. They are merely “born again”. So God puts His seed into this unbeliever and then He puts a gift of faith into the unbeliever and miraculously they are saved by God’s believing for them and God repenting for them???
Okay that is all I could get to today. Not sure when I can finish. I have lots of other work to get to. And it is tax season. Oh joy!
Cheryl,
The kingdom of God/Heaven is the same thing, but just expressed differently, so although the term ‘heaven’ is used it is still the kingdom of God. And please don’t give the impression that I don’t believe the kingdom is not future. I have said it is, but it has also begun in Jesus first visit to earth. That is why in Jesus parables he talks about things growing, the mustard see growing into a tree. This has begun already has it not? Or are all Jesus parables only references on heaven? When John the Baptist said that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, what did he mean in your view? Obviously you don’t believe he was talking about Jesus. Here is another example
Mar 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
And another
Mar 4:26 And he said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground.
Notice it doesn’t say ‘will’ be like. This is present tense. Again…
Mar 4:30 And he said, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?
If the kingdom is ONLY future, it doesn’t make sense. Jesus is describing it then and there to his hearers. What about this one
Mar 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”
This doesn’t make sense if the kingdom hasn’t begun yet. There must be people out there 2000years old hey?
Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
We are in God’s kingdom when we are justified. It has already begun, although we wait for it’s completion.
You see Cheryl, the kingdom like I have said has begun, but not yet complete- the now/not yet tension. I understand your insistance to say it is future because you need to see it that way to understand John 3 and regeneration.
‘In fact the terms “unregenerate” and “born-again” are opposites. They cannot exist together.”
I agree. An ungenerate person is one who is dead in sin. A regenerate person is one who has been born again. Your still looking at born again as only salvation, and this is where I think you are wrong.
“I wonder why you didn’t quote these verses? Is it because they are so obvious about a future judgment and a future entering into the kingdom that they cannot even be twisted to be about the here and the now?”
Wow, that’s a bit harsh isn’t it. You call me a brother aswell but say I twist the scriptures. Don’t criticise me when you do the same thing. NB. I have said all along that the kingdom is also future-please read me correctly. I disagree that it is ONLY future and was not inaugurated when Christ came.
“In fact everything about the “kingdom of heaven” is so obviously in the future and not in operation on the earth.”
I agree that the kingdom is heavenly not on earth. Maybe that is why you misunderstand me. If you think I am saying God’s kingdom is the earth, this is not what I believe. Let me try to say it plainly. God’s kingdom was inaugurated when Christ came, and will be fulfilled at his second coming. Everything in the Bible points to Christ, so when he came, God’s kingdom began. God conquered over sin and death and Satan then- his kingdom began, BUT it is still yet to be completely fulfilled. We live in the period beween the inauguration and the complete fulfilment.
“Now Mark, I have carefully gone through this piece by piece to show that the action of God which is the verb salvation is the “gift”. The rest only explains how the action is gifted to us “by grace” and “through faith”.
Cheryl, I disagree with your exegesis. Logically we must say then that ‘grace’ is not even a gift then. Is this what you believe? Do you believe that God does not bestow a gift of grace upon us. Is it just an abstract idea of God’s? Col 2:13 also talks about us being dead in our sins and uncircumcised sinful nature? If we are by nature because of our sinful nature passed down from Adam, dead in sin, how on earth can we possibly have the ability to have faith in God. It simply doesn’t make sense. We needed God to do something to make us not-dead. Why does Paul in 2 Thess thank God that their faith is growing if it is not God’s work?
2Th 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing.
Is it God who increases our faith or is it us? Answer that for me at least.
“Mark, you must be very busy, because you are not taking the time to carefully read what I have written. I didn’t say that the faith outlined in Ephesians 2 is not for every believer. Instead it is 1 Cor. 12:9 where the faith listed as a gift is not given to every believer.”
I’m not so sure you were so clear about that one. Look what you wrote…”Salvation is the gift of God and the vehicle is by grace through faith. The faith that is listed as God’s gift is not given to all of the saved just as not all have the same gifts.”
You were clearly talking about Eph 2:8 in your first sentence, so why should I have assumed you switched in your second sentence. So what you are now saying is that the faith in Eph 2:8 is different to the gift of faith in 1 Cor 12. Maybe it was you who were not so clear, rather than me misreading you? Fair comment?
“Who is claiming that our faith is “without the help of God”? It isn’t me. We are required to believe, but God is the one who draws us so it is never without the help of God. When you say things like this, I wonder why you do this? Have you accepted a false view of non-Calvinism from those who wish to separate from their brothers and sisters in Christ?”
Ok I think I am getting closer to understanding your view…maybe! So God ‘draws’ everybody (however that works) and this is how God helps? But when the decision needs to be made then it is solely up to the person…correct? God does not help that person actually believe, he just draws them in however you understand that.
No I don’t know anyone who wants to separate Calvinists from non-calvinists. I don’t think that is anyone’s intention in our churches. I simply want to know the truth. I want to know that if the act of saving faith is not something God gives to us, how can we say that we are therefore not adding something of our own to salvation? I’m yet to here a convincing statement on it. I can’t see how God draws every single person to himself when clearly not everyone knows about Christianity. I can’t see how as sinful people with a dead corrupt nature we can be expect people to accept Christ unless he opens their eyes to the message.
“This is illogical. You are defining faith as having nothing at all to do with us.”
No, not at all, but I think we are at least getting to the heart of the matter- how free-choice and God’s sovereignty work together. Faith is our action, it has to be since people who don’t believe are condemned. However faith is also something God grants to us aswell. Same as repentance in 2 Tim 2. God requires us to repent yet he is the very one who grants it. Look here is a clear example from Scripture that shows what I mean. Think about Joseph- who was responsible for him being sold into slavery in Egypt…his brothers clearly. Yet what does Joseph say.
Gen 45:8 So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt.
This is the tension in the Bible. We are responsible for our actions, yet at the same time God is at work aswell. It is wrong to go one way or the other. You can’t deny that God is involved in our saving faith, yet you can’t deny that we are the ones who make the decision. This is the tension. We believe because it is very much our decision to believe, yet we believe because it is very much God’s action to make us believe. This is where people stumble because they can’t handle it. But like I pointed out with Romans 9- it is not human will or exertion, but’s God’s mercy which saves us.
“This is where you are wrong because it is not “saving faith” that is the cause for boasting. It is “salvation” that could be a cause for boasting if one worked for it. But since we already defined saving faith as not a work and since there is nothing that one can do to earn salvation, your comments are illogical.”
I don’t think you can separate all these things all the time Cheryl. You seem to want to completely separate salvation from faith all the time. Eph 2:8-9 I don’t think allows for that. Sure we can boast if we work for our salvation, but surely there is room for boasting if I believe and you don’t, if faith isn’t a gift. There is heaps of room for boasting. The person who chose, made a better decision, they were wiser, understood more etc etc. This I reject. The verses do not lend themselves to such seperation like you have done. Salvation, grace, faith are all gifts, so that we may never boast of anything of ourselves.
I think you had a cheap shot a Piper there Cheryl. Any of us are vulnerable to pride not just Calvinists. I’m sure if you or I are ever in a position like Piper or anyone like that we would struggle. It is a good thing that Piper has realised this, he takes sin seriously and I praise God for that. Being a Calvinist does not negate nor increase one’s possibility of being proud- this is something we all struggle with. Maybe it is something even both of us should look at within ourselves.
But I reject that reformed theology increases people’s pride. That is just a cheap shot. It is illogical. If I believe that God’s elect are purely chosen by God’s choice and mercy (Rom 9) how can I boast- it has nothing to do with me. If however I believe that I am God’s elect because he foreknew what I would choose then I do have room to boast. Being God’s elect was dependent on something I did, something I chose not purely on the mercy and grace of God. I know which one I’d rather be on.
“I have done that because God has proven Himself faithful.”
So you chose God because he was faithful? Did you know he was faithful when you were converted or is that something you grew to understand? I sure didn’t know God was this great faithful God when I was converted. What if you wake up tomorrow and no longer believe God is faithful? What is stopping this from happening? Your faith or God’s faithfulness to you? There is too much reliance on myself in your view Cheryl for me to accept. Doesn’t Jesus say even if he raised a dead person people wouldn’t believe. What constitutes enough evidence to show God is faithful?
“But for Calvinists you can boast that God loves you and doesn’t love a lot of others – at least not with saving love. I can’t say that for God was willing to have saving love for all because He sent Jesus to die for all. You can look around and say that in a crowd of unbelievers that God loved me more than He loved them. I am special to Him for whatever reason. While you may not know the reason why He chose you, the fact that He chose you and you are one of the elite elect chose out of all humanity makes you have lots to boast amongst those that God doesn’t love. Don’t you see how that could cause many like Piper to be prideful?”
I don’t believe that God loves me more than others- reformed theology doesn’t believe that. We believe the Bible. God loves the world (3:16), he doesn’t take pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze 18). But God also chose to save some and not others according to his pleasure and his will. It has nothing to do with us or that he loves us more. You are misrepresenting reformed theology saying those sorts of things. Perhaps you should read Calvin! Please don’t also describe Calvinists as some sort of ‘elite’- this is unhelpful. If anything Calvinists affirm the total depravity of ALL people. We all deserve hell and punishment for our sin. I would never boast about being God’s elect because I know I have no place for doing that, I never deserved to be saved in the first place.
1. “The Bible says that repentance is “granted” and God grants repentance to anyone who will fear Him. It is always conditional and it is always dependent on the faithfulness of God to make sure that no one who fears God is left without salvation.”
This is interesting since you didn’t even deal with the verse I quoted. Let’s look at it
2Ti 2:24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,
2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
2Ti 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
I can’t see here that repentance is conditional to those who fear God. In fact isn’t Paul urging Timothy to pray for these men who are described as ‘opponents’ (not God fearers) so that they may come to a knowledge of the ‘truth’. Doesn’t Paul also describe them as captured by the devil and doing the devils will. These people that Pual says to ask God to grant repentance, definitely do not sound like they fear God.
“Mark, why have you been deceived to believe that saving faith is a work in some people when the Scriptures always set faith in opposition to works? Somebody has twisted your head around so that you do not even seen how you flip flop back and forth. “saving faith is a work” and “no, saving faith is not a work”. How could anyone accept Calvinism with this kind of inconsistency and illogical thinking?
You obviously have not understood me at all. Let’s try again. Saving faith is not a work ONLY because it is a gift of God. Once you remove the fact that it is a gift, it no longer is something from God, it is something from man therefore it becomes a work. I am saying the former, you the latter. Faith is opposed to works because it comes from God not man. IF it does not come from God it is from man. Your view( although you say you believe grace alone through faith alone) have made the ‘faith’ part into a man’s work because you deny it is something that God gives us. Do you see the difference. I have stated this several times now. Yes faith is a response, but even a response is a work (because it is something we do) UNLESS it is a gift of God. You are struggling to accept Calvinism because you don’t understand it. That’s why I keep recommending you read Calvin, not me, not any other ‘Calvinists’. Then see if what Calvin saids squares with the Bible.
“Frankly because of the teaching, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to say for sure if they are really one of the elect according to Calvinist doctrine. The only way that they will ever know for sure is if they persevere to the end. So until the day that they die or until the day that Christ comes, they can never really know for sure.”
Sorry this attaches to the end of the other post
I disagree. I know I am one of God’s elect because everyday I wake up trusting in Jesus as my Lord. I rely on God’s faithfulness not my own assurance that I will believe to the end. God has promised that he will never let go of his sheep and I trust this. If I trust only in my own faith then I would be scared of my assurance. God is the one we can trust, he is the faithful one and he has promised to hold me. He has promised that the Holy Spirit is a deposit guaranteeing my eternal salvation. Calvinism gives assurance because we rely on God not ourselves to perservere. Again you misrepresent Calvin. Where does your security lay Cheryl?
I’m wondering Cheryl if we should continue this feed via email since the posts are getting ridiculously long and hard to engage with every aspect. Let me know
Greg,
I must admit that my Lutheran knowledge is lacking. I guess you still hold to Luther reclaiming justification by faith alone. Perhaps you still are a Lutheran underneath.
Can you explain why you reject the doctrine of Original Sin. You talked about the whole counsel of God’s word, which I think is great so we don’t just pull texts that we like which cause contradictions. Do you believe that people are born sinless? Or at least without a sin nature?
I’m assuming you quoted that verse at me. That’s a big call mate! I hope your willing to back up your doctrinal beliefs. I look forward to hearing your response and seeing how it is you can reject such a big doctrine and yet still hold to Luther’s revival of the true gospel. I’m particularly interesting since I’m the one here trying to defend the orthodox position of the Church, and yet I’m the one labelled a Pharisee. Please respond giving a clear outline of your beliefs and the verses you believe support it.
“I disagree. I know I am one of God’s elect because everyday I wake up trusting in Jesus as my Lord. I rely on God’s faithfulness not my own assurance that I will believe to the end.”
Hmmm… what if you’re heart is still actually so “totally depraved” that it is deceiving (Jer.17:9) you into thinking that you are trusting in Jesus every day, but really you are not, yet in your “total depravity” you are unable to see it?
Wouldn’t Jesus need to be doing the trusting for you? Otherwise, wouldn’t your trusting be a “work” to keep God’s assurance?
Kay,
It seems you do not understand total depravity nor regeneration. Our depravity is a big concept and too detailed for me to explicitly cover in a small post. I suggest you read Calvin’s first two or three chapters in book 2 of the Institutes. Then once you actually understand was is depraved we can discuss further. Until you actually understand it, what i say will be useless.
You ought to be very careful how you wish to push free-will. Since this is not even a biblical concept we should be wary. Like i said earlier, the faith we have in Jesus is very much our decision and choice to make, yet without being regenerate will we never make it, therefore we need God to intervene to make us new.
Kay, may i ask you the same question i have asked Cheryl, but have yet to get a reply. How do you pray for non-christians? If it is not God who opens their eyes and soften their hearts what do you pray for? You see when we pray for people we don’t expect them to ‘choose’ on their own do we? We ask God to help them, yet when i write that here it seems radical to people. This is where people’s theology never matches with their Christian walk.
Cheryl has said that God will draw every single person to himself, so surely we don’t need to pray for that right? Cheryl thinks that saving faith is not the gift of God, so surely we don’t need to pray for God to give them that right? So what do we pray for? Really we are not expecting God to do anything in these people! They have prevenient grace- now it’s up to them right! Why bother praying at all? After all they are only the elect because God foreknew what they would choose- he didn’t play a part. I’ll leave that for you to answer. And please do read Calvin if you can, that way we will at least be somewhere closer to being able to communicate better.
Maybe also you can tell me why you are so confident in your faith. What gives you assurance
Kay,
Does not the Bible say that the only way we can call Jesus Lord is by the Spirit? We are totally depraved, sinful creatures, deserving of wrath and punishment UNTIL- God in his mercy makes us new. If i was still totally depraved i would not be able to do that- totally depraved people do not care nor seek for God-they reject Him. Regenerate, forgiven, justified people call Jesus Lord because they are a new creation, they are no longer dead in their sins.
Hope this helps.
I have been following the thread with great interest but due to Mark and Cheryls frequent and lengthy posts it has been all I am able to do just to keep up my reading. I would like to propose an analogy to help convey what I believe is the biblical teaching here. I have probably borrowed bits and pieces from others along the way. It is only an analogy, I use it because I feel it can convey a complex concept more accurately than a longer post and is more easily understood. Please see past obvious faults with the analogy but test the understanding it conveys against scripture.
In my analogy lets put a rotten carcus and a roast dinner side by side. In our sin nature we are like a vulture – we will choose to eat the rotten carcus. Our choice is made not because we don’t have access to a roast dinner – it is right beside the carcus but because we actually prefer the carcus – in our sin nature the carcus honestly seems like the right choice, the best choice. It is the choice we will always make as it is our nature to actually prefer the carcus over the roast just as the vulture does. Once God opens our eyes (Mark refers to this as being born again from my understanding) we see the carcus and the roast for what they are. We now can choose what is truly good – the roast dinner and we will choose it every time because in Christ it is now our nature to want the roast dinner. In both cases a free choice was made. In both cases the party chose what they perceived to be best. But while ever we are bound by our sin nature we are not able to choose the roast – we simply don’t want it. Once our eyes are opened we are unable to choose the rotting carcus – its very nature is revolting to us. I believe that this analogy helps as it shows that it is both our free choice to follow Christ and that we would never have been able to make that choice if God hadn’t of first altered our nature and shown us what we were really choosing. Once we understand the choice we choose heaven over hell but we needed to get past our sin nature before this was possible.
I know that this is not biblical quotation but I feel that it is a picture that is helpful to convey my understanding. This stance can be defended from and its conception was based in scripture, indeed it is a balance of biblical truths of free will and divine grace but I am travelling this weekend so will be unable to elaborate further until next week.
Hi Gazza,
I am happy that you have found this topic to be of great interest to you. It is good to know that others are reading and following along. It has been a lively discussion and yes, it has had long comments. I need to figure out how to get them shorter, eh? 😉
I am going to answer your comment before I return to Mark since it is good to have some variety, and you certainly brought that by your analogy.
Let’s interact with your analogy. You said:
Would you allow me to change things a bit? I would say that in our sin nature, we naturally are drawn toward the rotten carcass as the rotten carcass stands for sin. But even with our sin nature we are not incapable of eating a roast dinner (with the roast dinner being doing good things). We can eat roast dinner with our family and we can treat them with love and respect, but even with the roast in our bellies, we still find ourselves drawn to that stinky carcass because it pulls at our inner desires.
Here I would like to bring a bit of change too. We choose the stinky carcass not because it seems like the right choice, but because we just want to choose it. After all we have been given a gift from God called our conscience and our conscience tells us that the stinky carcass is the wrong thing to eat. It is not the best choice, but the choice that we crave despite our conscience telling us something different.
It isn’t the choice that we will always make because Jesus said that we are capable of choosing the roast, but it is a choice that if we are honest with ourselves, that we would choose if no one was watching and we would not have to suffer any bad consequences like stomach pains or someone watching us shamefully eating the bad meat.
But if this is what our eyes are open to, then God has made the conscience to be of no use at all. No, I don’t think that being “born again” is opening our eyes to the stink of the carcass. We already innately know about the stink because of God’s gift of a conscience.
What we need is for God to reveal our shame. It is like we have been privately gorging on the bad meat without anyone knowing and then the curtain we are hiding behind is pulled back and our shame is exposed. It is then that we see that we have a need for the Savior because of the light that shines in our darkness.
But is the exposing of our sin the same thing as being born again? I don’t see how it can be for God has defined the “born again” experience as a new birth with the “seed” of God and the life it brings is eternal life not temporary life.
Peter talks about our being born again as coming from the imperishable seed within us.
If we are given an “imperishable seed” at our rebirth, how can this new life be less than eternal life?
Peter also tells us that the new birth is tied to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
If the new birth is tied to Jesus’ resurrection, how can it anything less than eternal life?
The new birth is also called “new creation”:
The new creation is a miracle, not just a new way to look at things. It is literally becoming a brand new creation and it means that one is now “in Christ”.
Never does the Bible say that the new birth is a time without Christ or without eternal life or without salvation. It is always attached to salvation, God’s “seed” (being a child of God), eternal life and grace.
If the new birth is not becoming a child of God through His seed, then when does one become a child of God through what other seed?
Why would God use words for new life and words that make us an heir of God by His seed if at our new birth there is no eternal life, no inheritance, no seed of God within us? Did God use there metaphors to confuse us about when we inherit eternal life? What other miraculous event happens after the miracle of the new birth that would make us an heir of God?
The new birth is called the “washing” and “renewing of the Holy Spirit”. Titus 3:5 attaches this new birth to salvation.
Why is there a need for a subsequent miracle that would bring us into the family of God and save us when the “new birth” is already attached to salvation?
The new birth shown in 1 Peter 1:3-5 is a new birth “into” a living hope and “into” an imperishable inheritance reserved in heaven. What else can God do to tell us that the “new birth” is our miracle that is salvation?
1 Peter 1:3–5 (NET)
1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he gave us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 1:4 that is, into an inheritance imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. It is reserved in heaven for you, 1:5 who by God’s power are protected through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Gazza,
You said:
You are right in that it is now our nature to want to do good (eat the roast dinner), however we still have the old nature hanging around and we unfortunately do choose it so that we do not choose the good dinner everytime. Even born again Christians are susceptible to sin.
Yes, a choice was made and in both cases we can make both choices, but the one who is the seed of God does not practice sin and the one who is the seed of Adam practices sin although he can do good too, his natural inclination is toward what is not good.
While this sounds like a good analogy, it doesn’t fit the Biblical picture for Jesus said that even the evil people can choose to do good to those who they desire to give of their best. They can give of their best to their children. And at times we who are have been born again will desire the rotting carcass because the old nature pulls us. Our way of life will be continually on the road of life, living by the Spirit’s power even if we do slip up, He gives us aid.
The problem with this analogy is that it comes across as a works based salvation while we are saved by faith, not by doing good.
I would be happy to see your biblical proof of a “new birth” that has no eternal life, no God’s see and no salvation until later. Honestly, I haven’t seen that in the Scriptures.
Have a wonderful travelling time!
Mark,
You said:
This is not the nature of all humanity. The verses above say that they were “filled” with… The Greek term means to be filled up, completely full, come to completion.
Is this a description of Job? Was God a hater of God? God said that he was righteous and turned away from evil. Job was not one filled up with evil but one who turned away. The verses are a description of those who know the truth and turn away from it.
The context the passage proves that these are the haters of God and ones who will not turn to God. It is not a description of those who fear God. There are two kinds of humanity, not one. Job was a God fearer and there are many more like him.
I am glad that you admit the failure of Scripture to show even one case where a person was “born again” before they came to faith. Cornelius would have been an excellent case since he was one who feared God. He was one of those who belonged to the Father and the Father promised those who fear Him, that He would bring them to the covenant. This is fulfilled in Jesus. Cornelius had a vision that prompted him to ask for Peter to come because Cornelius was not a God hater, but one who belonged to the Father as a God fearing man.
We need to be born again because even fearing God is not good enough. We have to have a miracle that removes our sin and makes us clean. It is the new birth that washes us clean.
I haven’t changed what born again means as I have used the Scriptures to define it for itself. There is no Scripture that says that being “born again” is merely a dead man coming to life but without eternal life within him. Born again means a washing away of our sin through the miracle of regeneration.
Perhaps you would like to revisit the Scriptures to find one that describes a born again man as one who is without eternal life and needing something else.
That’s all I can do for tonight. It has been a full day for me. Will try to get through the questions again tomorrow. And I also have a new post I need to finish.
Thanks Mark for continuing the lively conversation.
Cheryl,
Just a quick point to help you understand what i mean. I am not saying that those who are born again do not receive salvation and eternal life. Being born again is part of the process of salvation. No one will be born again yet reject salvation. Anyone who is born again is given a new heart. their eyes are open, they accept Jesus as saviour and Lord. I think we would agree on that, and i equally agree with the passages you quoted from Peter- i’m not denying any of that.
The difference between us is you think people can accept the message of salvation while dead in sin. You base this on the fact that Jesus told the pharisee’s that they did ‘good’ things.
I do not think people can accept the message while dead in sins. They need the work of the Spirit to open their eyes to the message. Although the pharisee’s did ‘good’ things that has nothing to do with salvation. Any ‘good’ in this world is the common grace of God poured out on believers and non-believers, but this does not mean that they can seek or find God while still dead in sin. There nature is still corrupt.
From what i can tell you believe unregenrate man has the ability to seek God. I do not. I believe only regenerate man has the ability to seek God. This seems to be our difference. When regeneration occurs! (and perhaps what regeneration means)
Cheryl, i would love to talk more with you about Job and other OT saints. I think that is a very important point. Can you answer a few brief questions relating to Job- why was he righteous? Or what do you believe made God call him righteous? Was it because he feared God?
Finally one last question regarding this statement
“He was one of those who belonged to the Father and the Father promised those who fear Him, that He would bring them to the covenant.”
Are you saying that God bringing people to salvation or the new covenant is dependent upon them first fearing Him?
“Hope this helps.”
Mark,
Given that during our last encounter it appeared you had written me off as a heretic, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the conciliatory tone of your remarks to me here.
As to how I pray for those I think are non-christians – well this falls along the same lines as when you asked me about having authority over my children and I replied that I viewed it as responsibility to guide them, but not as asserting of authority. My prayers move along the lines of: Dear Lord, You know I’m very concerned about “Pat” so I’m lifting this up to Your care. I realize that You are well aware of the situation and I thank you for that.”
I gave up a long time ago trying to conjure up specific solutions to suggest as if He needs my helpful hints. 😉
Mark,
You said:
Mark, I think that you need to be completely forthright and admit that the Calvinist belief is that at the moment that one is “born again” that person is not saved. They are still unregenerate and still one of the reprobate until they believe. There is no “process” of salvation such that they are partly saved and partly regenerated and partly not a reprobate when they are “born again”. They are still fully unsaved at that point. The teaching is that being “born again” only makes them able to be saved by making them able to hear the gospel message.
One of the problems that I have with Calvinism is that its followers have a hard time actually admitting to the hard teaching of Calvinism to those who are not Calvinists. They system is complicated and this is why so many tell non-Calvinists to go and read chapters of Calvin’s work instead of taking them into the Scriptures and showing the person what Calvinism is clearly and distinctly from the Scripture. Why is that?
Now are far as how we pray, we ask God to do His work to save a person. A person has enough evidence of the Creator to seek for Him but many do not do that until God intervenes in a more direct way in their lives. We ask for Him to do that for our loved ones and those whom we desire to see saved.
But it is a complete mystery to me why Calvinists would even pray for someone’s salvation. After all they are taught that God has already picked out the elect from the foundation of the world so no prayer to God would ever change that. If the one you are praying for is one of the elect your prayer is unnecessary. If the one that you are praying for is not one of the elect, your prayer is useless. Do you ever think about this when you pray?
Mark,
You said:
This is another problem area for you. The new heart that is given is one that has been cleansed from sin. How is a person who has a clean heart not saved?
When we are given that new heart from God, that heart is cleansed of our sin and it always comes by faith and it always means salvation has come. It is completely baffling to me with the amount of teaching in Scripture about the new birth and the new heart that one could claim that the person is not saved who has that new cleansed heart. But for some reason the “system” of Calvinism doesn’t work without the denial that this is the work of God saving us. It has to be denied. For me, I would rather just believe God’s word that the new birth and the new cleansed heart is God’s work of salvation just as it says.
The problem is that you are actually denying it. You have to deny that the moment that the person is “born again” and has been given a “new heart” that is cleansed from sin, they are not saved. They will be saved at some point, according to Calvinism, but at that miraculous moment they are not saved. Rather than give God glory for the saving work that He alone does in our heart, Calvinism forces one to deny that this is a saving work of God. I am talking about the right now act of the new heart. You say it leads to salvation, but the Scriptures don’t ever say that. You have to read it into the passage, but I don’t even understand how you can do that. Give God the glory for what He has done. His cleansing work of providing new birth and a new heart cleansed from sin is the act of salvation. I will never deny God the glory of His act.
Now where does it say that a new heart is not yet salvation? Why would God need to give further gifts to save a person when a heart cleansed of its sin has no ability to be reprobate?
I will carry on in the next comment.
“But it is a complete mystery to me why Calvinists would even pray for someone’s salvation. After all they are taught that God has already picked out the elect from the foundation of the world so no prayer to God would ever change that.”
Cheryl,
I have often wondered the same things.
Mark,
You said:
No. I believe that evil people can do “good” because Jesus said so. I believe that unregenerate people can believe the gospel because God commanded them to believe and then Jesus reasoned with one who was unregenerate. Jesus didn’t say to Nicodemus that you must be “resurrected” to see the kingdom of heaven. He said that you must be “born again”. Jesus was giving him reason to believe. Jesus did not say that He had just resurrected him and had just given him a clean heart so that he could believe. That is foreign to the text.
God always reasons with unbelievers. But this would be completely useless if they had to be resurrected before they could hear.
God reasoned with Nicodemus and He reasons with us. He gives us a reason to believe and when we do believe He cleanses our heart. But for the Calvinist way of thinking an unregenerate person cannot be reasoned with because they are unreachable because “dead” means they cannot seek for God and they cannot hear God.
But the Scripture doesn’t say this and we see God both in the OT and Jesus in the NT reasoning with the unregenerate. This would make God very unwise and unreasonable if unregenerate people cannot hear and accept the message. I want to rely on what the Scripture actually says not what I think the process should be. I want to give God the glory for working hard to reach the unregenerate.
Yes, indeed, this is what I have been saying all along. But they do not need to be born again before they can respond and see.
I didn’t say that the good things would save them. But you said that unbelievers couldn’t do any good. I showed you how this is not true in the Scriptures.
Common grace is indeed given to all. And that common grace is all that is needed for God to allow an unregenerate person to seek Him. In fact only the unregenerate can “seek” God. Once a person is regenerate they have “found” God and they are in His family. The seekers are always the unregenerate.
Another problem that you have is that only the unregenerate are told to seek for God. The regenerate are told to live by the Spirit. They are not told to seek God because He is already within them. Don’t you see that? Only one who is not filled with God’s Spirit will need to “seek” Him. How can the regenerate be “seekers” when they are God’s family?
Yes, indeed this is one of the differences between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. I just don’t understand how you can believe that God causes one to be “born again” and put His seed within them and they are given a new heart that has been cleansed from sin and yet they are not saved. I have never seen God put His seed into a person without that person being a child of God. And no child of God is an unsaved person. Your inability to see that totally confounds me. I didn’t need a man’s book to show that to me. The Holy Scriptures speak volumes about salvation.
I will answer your question from the Scriptures for they alone have the answers.
Job was a person who did not hate knowledge. He accepted God’s counsel and did not spurn God’s reproof. He chose the fear of the LORD because of the knowledge that God gave.
When we respond to God with the fear of the Lord, He promises to instruct us in the way that we should choose. We are given both the opportunity and the requirement to choose God’s way.
Job chose to fear God because it was a choice given him. He feared God and turned away from evil as God gave Him instructions on how he should live.
I am saying that according to the passage of John 6 that we were discussing the ones that were brought to Jesus, those ones, were those who feared God and had been taught by Him.
John 6:45 (NASB)
45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
All who feared God and chose to hear and learn from the Father were all brought to Jesus and thousands of them got saved in one day.
These devout people were the God-fearers.
The ones who feared God were open to hearing His word.
These ones who were lead to Christ were already God-fearing people and they readily accepted and heard the Word.
Mark,
Isn’t it true that genuine belief in Christ means that reward could not have been the motive for faith?
To me, the reality of the human conscience and reasoning ability (Isa.1:18) makes it practical to assume that we do have free will. If I’m right in that assumption, fine; and if I’m wrong, then according to Calvin, I was pre-destined to be wrong and have lost nothing by my involuntary holding of an erroneous view.
Kay,
The Calvinists “inability” to understand that even though we are fallen people, we still have a measure of free will is puzzling to me. If all was predestined, then there is no ability to do anything that is truly “free” of the man since we have been preprogrammed to do what God wants. The ones programmed for salvation will respond when the right button is pushed (the Calvinist “born again” button) and the unregenerate or reprobate will respond exactly how God preprogrammed that person to respond. It is like a no-brainer. If I am predestined not to be a Calvinist, because God predestined everything, then why try to convert me? Wouldn’t that be going against God’s predestination? And wouldn’t there be no hope of conversion if God had predestined me not to be a Calvinist?
I really ponder how Calvinists can not just throw up their hands and do nothing. After all what is, is what God planned and if God wants you to do something He will push a button and you will respond. Why try and fight against what is a set-in-stone issue by God’s own decree?
It is really, really puzzling to me.
“If I am predestined not to be a Calvinist, because God predestined everything, then why try to convert me? Wouldn’t that be going against God’s predestination?”
Cheryl,
I’m equally as puzzled. It reminds me of folks I know who during each presidential election try to convince everyone that one of the candidates is “the” anti-Christ – so do not vote for them. And I’m thinking: if you really believe that then why aren’t you standing in your front yard looking up??
Mark,
Some of your comments lead me to wonder if you are aware that Judaism was never a “works based” religion, but a Covenant-based relationship? The Covenant was established first. Torah obedience was seen as the outflow of the Covenant relationship, but not the means of establishing the relationship with God. “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” Gal.2:15-16
I think we can agree that the New Covenant is the same way.
I will work backwards.
Kay,
I totally agree that God’s covenant’s have always been covenants of grace. God chose Abraham first. God chose Israel from amongst the nations. God chose those who were to be in the new covenant. You are right that our works flow out from our salvation. I’m not sure which i my comments made you believe i meant something else.
But isn’t it therefore intriguing that Cheryl believes that poeple must be God fearers BEFORE they can be saved. That doesn’t seem to fit with the pattern you outlined Kay. It seems to me that CHeryl thinks we must do something (or at least have a certain quality) before we are allowed to be saved. Maybe i haven’t understood properly- i dunno. BUt i guess it essentially changes the nature of evangelism doesn’t it- we need to make people fear God first!
Mark,
Again I think you failed to understand me. I said that those who were God-fearers belonged to the Father and He gave them to Jesus. Those who will be saved are those who listen to God and learn from Him. Those who refuse to listen and learn have no fear of God in them.
I notice that you seem to ignore all the Scriptures I gave about God’s promises to those who would fear God. Is it because you believe that God brings those who hate God and who have disobeyed Him, to Jesus?
Regarding #157,
Cheryl and Kay,
You have both clearly shown that you don’t actually understand reformed theology. It is clear by the comment “The Calvinists “inability” to understand that even though we are fallen people, we still have a measure of free will is puzzling to me.”
No Calvinist denies we have free will. The question is how far has our free will been corrupted because of the fall. If you think Calvinist don’t believe in a free-will then you are wrong. We do! But as the bible saids our nature is now corrupt from the fall. Remember the threat of the garden if they ate- death! Both physical and spiritual. Spiritually we are dead, seperated from God as were Adam and Eve after the fall. We are in broken relationship with God. Our ‘free-will’ therefore is also dead. It no longer seeks after the right thing. It loves darkness, it loves sin. This is where the difference lies. Calvinist take Eph 2 seriously- we are dead in sins. Cheryl’s view makes us just sick not dead. If we are dead we need to be made alive and only God can do that. IF we were just sick, then sure we might have the ability to do it ourselves.
“If I am predestined not to be a Calvinist, because God predestined everything, then why try to convert me? Wouldn’t that be going against God’s predestination? And wouldn’t there be no hope of conversion if God had predestined me not to be a Calvinist?”
This made me laugh! Maybe you should read again Romans 9 when Paul expects these responses.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
Maybe it will be helpful to also remember how Jesus taught us to pray- that God’s will will be done, not ours. The fact is no-one knows who God’s chosen people are except God. That is why we preach the gospel to every single person we meet. God’s uses the faithful proclamation of His salvation to draw his people to himself. There is a great difference between us. See I believe in the power of grace and the power of God. I believe that God can change any person. I do not just sit back and pray to God as an abstract figure, who will or cannot change the hard hearts of people. Yes I believe that God has predestined some to salvation and not others- the bible teaches that. But this does not negate the need for evangelism, it actually encourages it. If I did not believe that it was God who changed people then I would feel immense pressure on what I did. Did I say it right? Was I good enough, clear enough? This is the difference between a Calvinist and Arminian- who they rely on to change people.
Mark,
You said:
The Bible never says that our “free-will” is dead. This is something that is added to the text by the reasoning of Calvinists. The fact that those who are evil can do good things proves that their free will to chose what is right is not “dead”. If it was completely dead, they could not ever do anything that is good. But Jesus’ teaching on this is plain and when people contradict His word, they go off into definitions that are not Biblical.
Calvinists misunderstand Ephesians 2 by saying that an unregenerate “dead” man cannot do good. If their foundation of understanding what it means to be “dead” in sins is flawed, the entire doctrine and its results will be flawed. You need to deal with what Jesus said and make that a part of the picture and quit denying that those who are unregenerate can do good things.
Jesus said that He came for those who are sick. Where does He say that He came for those who are “dead”? Notice that Jesus calls sinners as “sick”.
Mark,
You said:
If we are “dead” then we need a resurrection not a rebirth. Those who are sick need to have a new heart that is cleansed, not resurrected.
Mark,
You said:
IF we were just sick, then sure we might have the ability to do it ourselves.
Jesus said that the sick need a physician. They cannot heal themselves.
Cheryl,
I don’t disagree with any of your scriptures. I agree that we are to fear God. I agree that people fear God. Where i disagree is that we can do this before we are saved or before the supernatural help of the Spirit. This is the issue. None of your scriptures say anything about people having to be God fearers before they come to God. Cornelius was a god fearer as a member of the Old covenant. THis was the description for those who converted to Judaism but would not get circumcised. This was not a requirement for him to be saved. He was already a partaker in the Judaism of the day.
You also need to keep in mind that the early chapters of Acts is when the message was spreading amongst the Jews. They already knew Yahweh adn his covenants. THis is not the same situation as Joe Blow down the street who has never heard about 1st century Judaism or Jesus Christ.
Mark,
You said:
Nope, you are wrong. This isn’t me. I am very happy that God made me like this and I do not see this as an injustice on God’s part.
Mark,
This has always caused me confusion too with Calvinists. How can you pray for God’s will to be done if God’s will cannot not be done? This would only work if God’s will may not be done if men stiffen their necks to his work. I have no idea how you think that a prayer like this would make sense to a Calvinist who believes that all things are preordained from the beginning. How is your prayer going to change that?
Mark,
You said:
And God has no way to direct you to the elect and to stay away from the reprobate? Why would He be interested in you preaching the gospel to anyone who has not been picked by Him?
Yet throughout Scripture we see God specifically sending His prophets to people who He knew would be lost. It is a godly thing to preach even to those who would harden their own hearts, but what good comes out of sending prophets to preach to those whom God predestined to be lost?
Cheryl
Do those people who do ‘good’ things get them in a right relationship with God? No of course not.
We are talking about an ability to come to God and recieve salvation. In terms of our nature and sin we are dead. This is precisely what Eph 2 is talking about, not about doing good things, so i actually think it is ou who does not understand the passage.
It is irrelevant if people can do good things because this has nothing to do with salvation which Eph 2 is talking about. IN terms of our nature and relationship to God, becasue of our sin we are Dead, not just sick.
Jesus uses the term ‘sick’ because he is contrasting wiht the ‘healthy’. You are importing foreign ideas into Eph 2. Pauls interest is between being dead in sins, and alive in Christ, not sick and healthy. Also notice the last contrast of JEsus- he did not come for the righteous but the sinners. It is clear that healthy= righteous, and sick=sinners in Jesus account. You are completely distorting both passages.
Mark,
You said:
Do you really? Do you believe that God can change any person if that person is a reprobate that was chosen from eternity past to be lost?
It would be wrong to think that non-Calvinists believe that we are praying to God as an “abstract figure” or that God cannot change a person by creating events that will bring them face to face with their sin and God’s judgment. Paul had a change from an outside event on the road to Emmaeus. God did not push a button to create a new heart in Paul without Paul’s will desiring that. He created an event that caught Paul’s attention and made Paul fall down before God in submission.
Name me one person that the Bible says was predestined to salvation.
Mark,
You said:
Well you are relying on God but you have no idea whether he will change that person or not because you have no idea whether God loves them or not. I have a freedom to know for sure that God loves everyone and wants all to come to repentance. And I know that God is willing to draw them and that He will help me to say what needs to be said to make their heart condition clear.
I don’t feel an immense pressure at all. I feel like it is a privilege and I know that the work that I do is not offending God by praying for them and studying to show myself approved unto God as a workman for their benefit. But you may be offending God by working hard at evangelizing someone who has been specifically chosen to go to hell. How does God feel about your work and how does He feel when He cannot help you to share God’s love with that man since God doesn’t love him? It seems like I am the one who has complete freedom knowing that I am doing God’s will and not fighting against it by praying for someone who God doesn’t love.
Perhaps yo9u were relying on yourself to change people you were not a Calvinist, but I have the freedom to give my best and know that God is able to take my mistakes and use them for His glory. Even our mistakes can be used to win the lost. I do not worry, I do evangelism for God’s glory and then I leave Him with the results and praise Him for what He alone can do.
“Nope, you are wrong. This isn’t me. I am very happy that God made me like this and I do not see this as an injustice on God’s part.”
Cheryl, this is exactly you, because you think it is unfair that God’s ordains all things as you have said before. My guess though is that you have re-interpreted Romans 9 aswell to make it say something it isn’t.
“And God has no way to direct you to the elect and to stay away from the reprobate? Why would He be interested in you preaching the gospel to anyone who has not been picked by Him?”
We are told in the bible to make disciples of all nations- to tell all about Jesus. When people reject this they are condemned. We would all be condemned if God by His Spirit did not open our eyes and soften our hearts. By preaching, God’s elect are saved by belief and those who reject the message are condemned.
You are right that God sent prophets to people who he knew would not repent. We see this with Isaiah early on. We see it in Acts when only those destined to believe are saved. We see it in 1 Peter when those who reject the stone, stumble because that is what they were destined for. Surely you believe that people are either destined to believe or not, unless of course you hold to some kind of open theology. Even if you are an Arminiam you believe this, because Arminians at least believe in God’s foreknowledge.
Mark,
You said:
Show me a Scripture that says that one cannot fear God before they are saved.
Let me show you a Scripture that showed that people did fear God before they were saved.
Are you going to say that this Gentile who fear God was already saved? If there is even one example of one who feared God before they were saved then the doctrine that no one can fear God until they were saved is false.
Cornelius was a Gentile. How was he a member of the Old covenant? And I didn’t say that people have to fear God before He calls them, but I did say that those who feared God were brought to Jesus and the new covenant. When they feared God and were taught by Him, they belonged to the Father. Which God haters belonged to the Father?
It seems to me that you are making all people into one category when God has said that there are differences.
This is the passage that talks about those who fear God and that God promises to bring them to His covenant. God said that there is a distinguishing between these two kinds of people (the God-fearers and the God-haters) and you say they are all the same. Seems to me that you contradict the Word quite a lot.
Mark,
You said:
Again you bypass the fact that this one was a God-fearer before he was saved. This fact doesn’t fit with Calvinism.
Mark,
You said:
We are once again talking about a person being a God-fearer before they are saved. Yet you say that one cannot seek God before one is “born again”. Does God say that those who fear Him will be brought to the covenant or does He say that He will take those who hate Him and drop something into them that makes them automatically fear Him? Is it a gift from God or is it a response from man?
Mark,
You said:
We have not been talking about doing good deeds to get saved. We have been discussing whether an unregenerate person can do good things. We are talking about an inability to do good, an inability to seek God and an inability to fear God without being born again. I have shown you verse after verse where those who have not yet been born again fear Him, seek for Him, and even those who are evil and do not seek for God can do good. That is the issue and you have failed to prove your point from the Scriptures.
When you became a Calvinist did you actually study this issue using an alternative view from the Scriptures or did you only receive influence from Calvinists? Have you read any books refuting Calvinism or dialogged with those who are not Calvinists in a respectful and passionate way before you became a Calvinist or did you just follow the path without any serious opposition?
“but I have the freedom to give my best and know that God is able to take my mistakes and use them for His glory.”
So you are expecting God to open the eyes of unbelievers, you no longer are saying that it is their own strength which saves them.
“Name me one person that the Bible says was predestined to salvation.”
Abraham was chosen purely by God’s grace. Moses was chosen purely by God’s grace. So was Isaac, so was Jacob. So was Paul since he was persecuting Christians until God changed him. IT sure wasn’t Paul’s concern for seeking Jesus.
Maybe you can clarify if you at all believe that people are predestined to salvation? Oh I almost forget, it seems Paul thought the Ephesians were predestined to salvation.
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
1. “Do you really? Do you believe that God can change any person if that person is a reprobate that was chosen from eternity past to be lost?
Yes I do believ God can change any unregenerate person according to his will and purpose as Paul’s says. IF it is not according to God’s will, then no it will not happen. Everything happens according only to God’s will and mercy not our own as Romans 9 states.
“It would be wrong to think that non-Calvinists believe that we are praying to God as an “abstract figure” or that God cannot change a person by creating events that will bring them face to face with their sin and God’s judgment.”
Ok I see. So you only ask God to ‘create events’ that will bring these people into a certain position. So you ask God for an opportunity to say something, but you don’t actually ask God to open your friends eyes right?
Final point, I have said and shown you from the bible why I believe God loves all people. Please don’t insistently keep saying God loves some more than others. You are hardly being fair to people who disagree with you. Don’t distort people’s views who disagree with you.
Mark,
You said:
Sorry, my friend, you said that Eph 2 proves that the unregenerate are dead in sin and this means that they cannot seek for God and cannot do good. Now that your understanding has been challenged and proven wrong, you want to change the challenge.
And why did Jesus refer to sinful men as sick? Would you be making fun of him for doing so? How do you deal with the passages where Jesus talks about sinful men as sick?
Mark,
I should have read a little further for your answer.
You said:
But Jesus also uses the term healthy to refer to the saved and “sick” to refer to the unsaved.
Look carefully at the above verse. Who is Jesus calling “sick”? It is the righteous or the sinners?
Here is another quote:
Are the righteous ones the well ones? Are the sinners the sick ones? Is it the sick ones that he is calling to repentance?
Mark,
You said:
Is Paul contradicting Jesus? Jesus calls them sick. And His words are recorded twice. Where is a second witness that sinners are “dead” and in need of a resurrection?
Yes, that is what I just said. Sinners are sick. They need to be made well, they don’t need to be resurrected. Sinners indeed are sick and Paul is not contradicting Jesus.
Mark,
You said:
I have never said that a sinner’s own strength saves them. Why can’t you see that? Don’t you realize that salvation is a miracle? Don’t you see that we are incapable of creating that miracle? Don’t you see that God alone can cause the miracle of the new birth, that He alone can put His seed in us and that He alone saves us. It is not of ourselves. It is 100% of God.
Wow Cheryl i cant keep.
Let me make a proposal because there are some real issues here. Why don’t we slow down and actually look at passages exegetically and in context rather than just proof texting.
After all one cannot claim that we can seek God if Romans 3 is correct that none can (unless of course Romans 3 is not as clear as it seems as you suggest)
Likewise one cannot say God has ordained some to salvation and others not, if there are passages which contradict that.
At least maybe this way we will be more faithful to scripture rather than proof texting all the time, and that way we can slow down a bit and actually discuss the bible, not theologies or presupposed ideas.
Ill leave it up to you. You can even choose the passage if you want. How’s that!
Sorry, my friend, you said that Eph 2 proves that the unregenerate are dead in sin and this means that they cannot seek for God and cannot do good.
No, my point was that good does not equal faith. Roman 14 says anything not done in faith is sin. Therefore it may be good becasue of God’s common grace, but it is still sinful because they are not doing it in faith in the God who enables them to do good- this is the difference. People of themselves are corrupt and evil (Gen 6:5), any good is becasue of God’s grace to them, but it is still sinful becasue what they do isn’t in faith.
Here’s an example- When people build a hospital it is a good thing becasue it helps people etc etc (God’s common grace), however if those poeple who built that hospital do not build it in faith in God, they are sinning. THis is the issue and the nature of our humanity
Mark,
You said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong, if God has ordained me to be a non-Calvinist I don’t think it is unfair at all. I am happy and content and I belong to God. Why would I call God unfair to me?
No they are not. They are condemned because God chose them for destruction without any conditions. ‘Apparently He made them to go to hell so it isn’t their rejection of the gospel that sends them there.
Actually that isn’t true either. It is according to the Calvinist message that we learn that the elect are that way unconditionally. You can’t now say that their salvation depends on a condition. They were picked unconditionally, remember?
Being “destined to believe” is not about God’s foreknowledge. It is about predestination by God’s unconditional election so no I do not believe that people are unconditionally destined to believe.
You said:
Where does the Bible say that Abraham was chosen purely by God’s grace?
It was Abraham’s belief of God that was credited with righteousness. The Bible never says that Abraham’s salvation was only by grace without faith. It was never unconditional.
Moses, Isaac and Jacob were not chosen for salvation. They were chosen for a task. Show me one verse that says that God chose them for salvation unconditionally without faith.
I believe in predestination because the Scriptures teach it. But the Scriptures never teach a predestination to salvation of the wicked without the condition of faith. There is a predestination to earthly work but never a predestination to salvation without condition.
Look at John the Baptist. He was predestined to become the fore runner of Christ yet he was not predestined to salvation. He expressed doubt that Jesus was the Messiah.
You answered my question this way:
Did you read my question? I asked if God can change a person who has been predestined from eternity past to be lost. Are you saying that God predestines someone unconditionally be lost and then later he conditionally changes that so that they can no longer be lost even when He had decreed them to be lost? That seems awfully weird. Are you sure that you believe that God can contradict Himself?
Sure I ask for God to open my friend’s eyes. Remember that the Bible doesn’t call this being “born again”. It is an opening of the eyes so that they can see their condition but it is not bring a dead person to life as a “born again” person. So yes, I regularly pray this way and I am expecting that God will answer yes, because it is His will to save. Unfortunately many whose eyes have been opened by God will refuse to believe by the act of their will. They reject Him with their eyes wide open to the truth.
If you follow Calvinism, I know what you believe about love. You believe that God loves all, but He has no saving love for those whom He has predestined to be lost. So while I can preach the gospel and tell all that God loves them and desires that they would be saved, you would not be able to preach that and assure them that Jesus died for their sins. If you actually believed that God loves all in a saving way, you would not be a Calvinist, so I don’t know how you can say I misrepresented you. Point blank – do you believe that God loves all with a saving love?
Mark,
You said:
I have no problem with going through the Scriptures. But the problem that you mainly have is that you want to hold to a view that causes the rest of the Scriptures to contradict Romans 3. Paul is not adding to the Scriptures. If he was how could we be Bereans? The Bereans were more noble because they checked out Paul’s teaching by the OT Scriptures. If Paul contradicted the OT Scriptures like you believe he did, wow, that would make a real problem about whom to believe.
God ordains believers to salvation. There isn’t one Scripture where an unbeliever is ordained to salvation. That is why I asked you. And I am still waiting for even one Scripture where the actual ordaining is of an unbeliever to salvation. Go ahead and prove me wrong if you can.
Well, my friend, I am the one who kept calling you to the context and showing you where it disagreed with your view. You are the one who tried proof texting. But if it will keep you honest, let’s go for it.
How about John 6?
Mark,
You said:
Oh my, is that ever baloney. If that was what you were arguing for we wouldn’t have argued for I to believe that good does not equal faith.
Context, my friend, context. Who does this apply to? It is “anything” not for “anyone”. You can’t just change the words around and make this apply to everyone. It is for Christians who go against their conscience and without faith. That is certainly a sin. You have failed to show from the passage where it refers to unbelievers since no unbeliever can do a single thing in faith. Remember we talked about this?
Job wasn’t corrupt and sinful. He listened to God and he feared Him and turned away from evil. This was God’s witness. Why should I believe you when you are taking a text out of the context and disagreeing with what God said about Job?
Sorry, but I will go with God everytime because I am and want to continue to fear God.
Not only is this not what the Scripture says, but let’s play this one out and see where it gets us. We go to those people who are looking to build the hospital and we tell them that they cannot build because they don’t have faith in God. So we go around the world and force everyone to stop doing anything good because we don’t want them to be bigger sinners. So less hospitals, less people helping other people. And this is what God wants?
Here we would say “Give your head a shake!”
‘Is Paul contradicting Jesus? Jesus calls them sick. And His words are recorded twice. Where is a second witness that sinners are “dead” and in need of a resurrection?’
I’m not sure why you are trying to play Jesus words off against Paul as if the red letter parts of the bible are more authoritative. But just so you are aware here is a second witness to being dead in sin apart from Eph 2:1
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
John 6 sounds great. What parts? What have you got in mind?
by the way, just a few more verses to show you that the kingdom was inaugurated in Christ’s coming
Luk 17:20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed,
Luk 17:21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
thoughts??
“People of themselves are corrupt and evil (Gen 6:5), any good is becasue of God’s grace to them, but it is still sinful becasue what they do isn’t in faith.”
Mark,
Here’s what Genesis 6:5 says in context:
“5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord. 9 These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of cypress wood…”
7:13 “On the very same day Noah with his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons entered the ark”
Notice verses 8-10 &14 and 7:13.
Kay,
I’m not sure i follow your point. Noah was a man declared righteous because of his faith. I would have thought we agreed on that?
“By faith ?Noah, being warned by God concerning ?events as yet unseen, in reverent fear con-structed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of ?the righteousness that comes by faith.”- Heb 11:7
It is faith that make some righteous not what they do. This is the case with Noah. This doesn’t mean though that we was exempt from the sinful nature of Adam and his offspring. By nature (Noah) and us have a sinful nature. Our hearts are stone, sinful. Sin is evil is it not? IF our hearts are by nature sinful, then we by nature are evil in relation to a Holy God. See also
The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9
3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
4 ? Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil ?in your sight,
? so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:3-5
This is why we need a new heart (Jer 31:31ff). We need the law written on our heart, not stone. We need the indwelling of the Spirit. In other words we need God to give us something we can’t do ourselves. We cannot be righteous in and of ourselves (or our actions). If we as humans are not born corrupt in need of help, then what is the significance of the atonement, we would not need it.
Finally a vital text
“And even ?if our gospel is veiled, ?it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case ?the god of this world ?has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing ?the light of i?the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ?ourselves as your servants? for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, ? “Let light shine out of darkness,” ?has shone in our hearts to give ?the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:4ff
Unbelievers are blind! The gospel is veiled to those who are perishing. But God has shown light in believers hearts. He has opened their eyes from darkness to light, from being dead to being alive. Just as what is promised in the prophecies of the Old Covenant.
sorry about all the question marks in the texts, something went wrong there.
Kay, can i ask if you accept or reject the doctrine of Original Sin?
Cheryl
“Job wasn’t corrupt and sinful.”
Are you saying Job did not have the inherited sinful nature of Adam or that he was a sinful man?
“therefore I (Job) despise myself,
and repent? in ?dust and ashes.” Job 42:6
Why repent if he wasn’t corrupt and sinful? Sure Job is described as righteous and upright, but to therefore conclude he was not sinful is wrong, the bible shows that. It is in precisely the same way that we as God’s people are declared righteous yet we sin continually and must repent and seek forgiveness. Being described as righteous does not mean that he wasn’t sinful or by nature had a corrupt heart in need of God’s enlightening.
“But the Scriptures never teach a predestination to salvation of the wicked without the condition of faith. There is a predestination to earthly work but never a predestination to salvation without condition.”
“For those whom he ?foreknew he also ?predestined l?to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be ?the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also ?justified, and those whom he justified he also ?glorified.” Romans 8:29:30
Here we are presestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus (thus we must be saved) not an earthly work. Also note our predestination comes before justification (and therefore faith). Now where does the bible say we are predestined conditionally.
“In love ?he predestined us? for ?adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” Eph 1:5
Here again we are predestined for adoption through Jesus, by God’s will NOT because he foreknew what we would choose.
Not to forget all of Romans 9 which is clearly dealing with individual salvation not just ‘earthly work’. After all the Jews would never have been offended by the truth of Romans 9 if Paul was simply talking about earthly work. Not only that but the whole premise of Romans 9 hinges on verse 6b, where Paul said that not all Israel (earthly communal election) are true Israel (those predestined to salvation). This he saids becasue the question is raised whether God’s word has failed with the Jews. So Cheryl, the Bible does clearly teach UNconditional election. THis is the sovereignty of God.
I would seriously like to hear your definition of God’s sovereignty?
Mark,
I have been working on my next post so I didn’t get a chance to get to your last questions and comments. It is an extremely busy time for me so please have patience with me.
If you are producing your comments in Word and then transferring them onto the blog, that may be why you are getting question marks. The formatting is better if you want to do you work in notepad instead even if you write in Word and then copy and paste to Notepad to remove Word formatting and then copy and paste from Notepad to the blog.
I have time for only one comment this morning. You said:
So tell me why does satan have to “blind” dead people? If they are truly dead and cannot see of their own, why would he have to blind anyone? The fact that he needs to keep them from the gospel shows that without his working to blind them, they would be able to see. That is another great passage that shows that we are sick and blind but not “dead” and unable to respond to God!
One other quick comment. To allow people to hear the gospel, does the Lord need to remove the blinders or resurrect them according to the passage that you quoted? If he needs to resurrect them to hear the gospel, then no blinders were ever necessary since it would be laughable to put a blind on a dead man. That wouldn’t make the passage make sense at all.
Thanks for your response to my last post #146. Unfortunatly I was not clear enough – ever a danger with analogies. The roast dinner/ carcus was not meant to represent any individual sin but rather choosing between everlasting life (the roast) or death (the carcus). It was meant simply to highlight the fact that even our choice to follow Christ in faith is one that we are unable to make until He opens our eyes through changing our nature. Once He has done this there is no other choice for us to make, we still have free will to reject Christ and choose the carcus but we no longer desire to do so…
In Post 185 you say
No they are not. They are condemned because God chose them for destruction without any conditions. ‘Apparently He made them to go to hell so it isn’t their rejection of the gospel that sends them there.
This is exactly the thinking I was trying to anticipate with my analogy. The choice of life is there right beside the choice of death but they reject it because of their sin nature. When someone tells them the baked dinner is better they regect them because of their sin nature(in our sin nature we do believe the carcus to be better). But they are still making the choice to reject Christ and they are liable for this choice. Certainly God did not open their eyes to show them the folly of their choice but this is at Gods discretion(indeed it is the corrupt nature of sin that they would not want God to do any such thing) – it is still a choice they have made and are accountable for it.
Mark,
By now I think you already know that I don’t hold calvinist doctrine.
Personally, I would have a big problem following the interpretations of someone like John Calvin, who condoned the death sentence of people he deems are “heretics” or people accused of being witches. I feel no affinity with a person who could stand for that.
To put that into familiar terms for you, imagine that Calvin was in your city and next Sunday the Dandenong Reformed Church is conducting a ‘beheading’ or ‘burning at the stake’ on their lawn. What would you think about that? Would you go to watch the heretics and witches burn? Would you help light the fires? Imagine the t.v. news crews showing up to film it!
I think you would find that abhorrent, right? I truly think you would. But that is just the sort of thing Calvin condoned in Geneva and never once spoke out against. And if he was alive and well today in Melbourne it could be happening near you.
Let’s say Calvin lived today in Melbourne and his ‘Consistency’ police had gotten hold of you the day ‘before’ you had converted to calvinism – *you* would have been condemned to die as a heretic. What a sad end for you Mark.
Think about it – *your* head at the end of the chopping block because another fallible human being like yourself, decided they were the judge and jury of your non-elect “heresy.”
Mark, have you ever wondered that about your own kids? Or, are you o.k. with the thought that if they are chosen ‘damned’ ones you’ve simply fulfilled God’s will by being their father?
It is puzzling that I see numerous commentaries by John Calvin, but in the same breath he could not figure out the verse “love you enemy as yourself”. For a man to be considered a genius on everything in the Bible and somehow miss what the entire New Testament conveys is a ridiculous notion to me. However, somehow his ‘infallible’ theology allows him to get a pass to endorse the burning and the imprisonment of others because they disagreed with his Institutes, while Jesus went to the cross for us! Totally puzzling.
If only God knows our status as His “elect”, how do you know that John Calvin was saved? I mean – really, how do *you* know Mark? What if Calvin wasn’t “elect” and you are following an entire theological system devised by a man not “of faith”? Calvin’s own paradigm contradicts itself on the fact that Calvin has no way of ascertaining his own elect-ness for you. It’s purely God’s own secret whether or not Calvin persevered to the end.
Please, understand that I’m not writing any of this to be mean or to make light of this. Truly I only hope that you will reconsider all the angles of what you are buying into.
Kay,
I appreciate your comments and concerns. There are no doubt that Clavin made mistakes in his lifetime. No one denies that. In fact i don’t agree with all of Calvin’s teaching, that is why i don’t like being labelled or labelling myself a ‘calvinist’. I try to follow the bible not men. Calling people calvinists or arminians or any other theological brand name, really doesn’t help in good dialogue. It just puts us into little ‘buckets’ of pre-conceived ideas.
However to deny the significance of the man’s teaching would be silly. His influence into reforming the Christian church back to it’s biblical roots was enormous. Following a doctrine of clavinism is not about following the man John Calvin. He of all people would be disgusted at the way we label people after his name. HIs concern was purely in magnifying the truth of the bible and glorifying God, not himself.
It is sad that you reject anything the man said because of some things he did. I have had a man in my church say the same thing to me. However if we took the bible seriously we would see that all theologians and teachers are sinful people. After all looking at someone in unrighteous anger is equivalent to murder in Jesus eyes. I’m sure most of our modern theologians would therefore be murderers in God’s eyes. We need to look past those sorts of things. Calvin had a firm grasp on scripture and that is why i enjoy reading him. Although i utterly reject the way he dealt with Servetus and others.
It might also help to remember the culture of his time. We should be wary being to criticle from our culture looking back. After all we have numerous references in the bible where things deserve the death penalty- even as small as a child disobeying their parent. THere are many things from other cultures which seem disturbing to us in the 21st century western societies.
Also Kay about judging whether people are saved is not a helpful thing- i’m sure we would both agree on that, even if you diagree with the doctrine of perserverance of the saints. Calvin simply taught what the bible says- Jesus will lose none of his sheep, those who perservere to the end will be saved, the Holy Spirit is a deposit guarenteeing our salvation. I’m not willing to speculate on who and who isn’t saved. SImply put, those who repent, ask for forgiveness, accept the free gift of Jesus salvation are saved, and we know the sincerity of a person’s commitment by their sanctification in this life and ultimately there persistence in faith until the very end of their life. THis is what the bible teaches, therefore we should teach it, without speculating on who is saved and who isn’t- that is not for us to do. God has revealed the way to salvation, so we should simply preach it.
Rejecting reformed theology causes many contradictions in the Bible, which simply can’t be explained exegetically as those who try to do. THis is why i believe much of what it teaches it true to the Bible. I am open to the Spirit teaching me otherwise, and i hope He does if it is not correct, but thus far in my Christian walk i have gone the other way- from rejecting calvinism to accepting it.
Also about my children i agree with you that it is hard to comprehend- i have seriously struggled with that. But my hope lies in GOd’s faithfulness, not on my children’s ability. GOd is just and righteous and will never do any wrong either to me or my children. IF they choose to reject Him God will have done me no wrong to punish them eternally. However i pray desperately for my children asking God to be merciful on them as sinners. I also teach my children the truth of the bible- that they must accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour. I will never reject any hard truth of the Bible simply becasue it makes me uneasy about my family. After all Jesus has told us that if we love them more than Him, we are not worthy of Him. IF the Bible teaches unconditional election (which i think it does) then i would be far wiser to accept the Bible’s teaching, rather than reject it because of my kids. BUt that said i would be lying if the biblical doctrines of providence at times did not bring me to my knees in anguish.
Mark,
You said:
Please explain to me how this fits in with the 5 points of Calvinism? You asked me how I prayed for the lost and I told you. But how can a Calvinist pray like this knowing that all were chosen either for election to Heaven or election to Hell and nothing that we can do (or pray!) changes that? So help me to understand why a desperate prayer would have any meaning with the mindset of Calvinism? You haven’t answered this yet and I ask you to enlighten us.
Another thing, Mark, that is unsettling is the issue about leaders such as Calvin who brought teaching into the church that has been followed by millions. You said:
I think one of the main points that Kay was making is that it would be possible that Calvin was not one of the elect since we cannot know for sure until we get to Heaven. The point that she made had not crossed my mind. If Calvin was not one of the elect, then millions of Christians have followed his teaching and may be in serious error. Calvin taught that one could be deceived by God into believing that they are saved when the faith they have is not saving faith. If this is so, how could anyone know before death that they are of the elect and how many of the “leaders” are teaching error because they are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing? The doctrine lends itself to uncertainty and doubt. One simply cannot have an assurance today.
I praise God that I do not follow a system that leaves me in doubt and worried that I might be deceived by God. I know that God never deceives people into believing that they have a faith in God while they are a false believer. It is the enemy who seeks to kill, steal and destroy. It isn’t God that has this position at times as Calvin taught.
Mark, as far as discussing John 6, it would be a discussion in the complete context of the chapter. Context is very important. The last JW I witnessed to was an elder who tried to prove his point by proof-texting. I made him read the chapter before and the chapter after along with the chapter of the quote that he made. By the time we were done reading the three chapters, his point had completely dried up and he knew it. Apparently it was the first time that anyone had made him read the context. I praise God for the truth in context!
Cheryl,
You asked why i pray the way i do. To answer simply, because we are told to pray and care for people, both saved and unsaved. God has appointed prayer as the means to communicate with Him. He has aslo appointed prayer as the means to to bring his will to come about- we know this from Jesus example. It is amazing that God uses human agents to fulfill his will.
It seems that you haven’t fully grasped what election teaches. Althought the Bible teaches Unconditional Election, that does not mean therefore that we do nothing- quite the opposite. God uses us to fulfill his purposes and will. When we preach the gospel faithfully, God will use that to bring people to himself. Likewise when we pray, God will answer our prayers (as long as it is His will of course) to fulfill His purpose and will. To sit back and do nothing (as some calvinists have done before) is not correct- that is not obeying the clear teaching to pray and witness.
The reason i pray for my children is because i know that they are sinful. I know that because of their sin they are in rebellion to God and a broken relationship. I know that they can’t fix that, therefore i ask God to show His mercy upon them.
That said the Bible teaches that God has mercy on whom he wishes and hardens whom He wishes, i’m not denying that. That is the harsh truth of the Bible which Paul outlines in Romans 9.
Cheryl,
If you think ‘calvinist’ are sheep in wolves clothing, you should say that outright.
Maybe also you can outline further this comment and cite where Calvin saids this.
“Calvin taught that one could be deceived by God into believing that they are saved when the faith they have is not saving faith.”
No issue with John 6 and surrounds, but please don’t compare me to a JW. I have seen you over and over again proof text aswell- it’s just inevitable in this sort of dialogue on theologies. The issue is whether a proof text contradicts a clear teaching on scripture- that’s where it is dangerous.
I’ll leave you to introduce the context if you like with John 6. You never know we might actually agree on something- let’s hope hey!
By the way, i would also like to apologise if i have offended you or others in any of my comments in the past. PLeaer continue to rebuke me if you feel like i overstep the mark. After all, we should all be striving to holiness and sanctification and helping each other to do that.
Mark,
“After all, we should all be striving to holiness and sanctification and helping each other to do that.”
Amen.
I don’t have time for one of my longwinded replies today, (I hope you smiled) – however, just a couple of quick observations.
I feel a “brethrenly” concern for you – as it appears to me that the theological views you currently hold about God are somehow robbing you of joy and peace.
As to the stoning of a child you mentioned – I take it you meant Deut. 21:18-21. First, the person in view is a not a small child but a grown “son.” The Hebrew term for “son” (ben) employed here is indefinite. It is sometimes used of children of both sexes. Of itself, the word “son” does not give any indication of age. It can refer to a child or a young man (cf. 1 Sam. 4:4; 19:1; 1 Kings 1:33); age must be determined from the *context.* In this case, the son in view is not a child, for the sins named the in text to show his contumacious manner are *gluttony* and *drunkenness (v. 20); hardly the sins of the average 6 or 10 year old. The case also indicates that the parents have tried to restrain their son, but all their efforts have failed (vv. 18, 20); specifying that he is physically beyond their control. The parents bring their son to the magistrates to judge the matter (v. 19); hence, the son would have opportunity to speak on his own behalf. All of this indicates that the “son” in question is no mere child but, rather, a youth at least in his middle teens or older. The law is not talking about naughty children but about seriously delinquent young adults.
Kay,
Sure i agree about the passage in Deut. The point i was making though, was that for us- that is still a harsh punishment. Imagine now if countries introduced that kind of law- half of the Australian adolescents would be killed. But we know from the text that the reason that punishments were so severe is because the Israelites were to get rid of the ‘evil’ from among them. This is about a community of God honouring people. They were essentially to ‘kill’ any evil- we see the same thing with the conqering of the land do we not?
Now in relation to Calvin, why did he do those things we consider ‘horrible’? He was applying almost the same principle. Now don’t here me wrong that i am applauding what he did- i do not. The Israelites had an imperative from the Lord to do such things, Calvin did not. Jesus shows us in the NT how we should live- based around love. However many in Calvin’s time were trying to sanctify the people. In order to do this they ‘purged’ the evil from the Church (in this case false teaching).
So although i do not recommend we act the way Calvin did, i can see why he did it. Do you understand what i am trying to say?
Also i appreciate your concern, however i do not feel like i am robbed of joy and peace. For me, once i grew in my understanding of sin, i grew in my understanding of grace. The more we realise what we deserve becasue of our sin, the more we appreciate and enjoy the gracious act of God to save us. To me, a weak view of sin= a weak view on grace.
Also the doctrine of predestination (unconditional) also emphasises God’s grace. Nothing we do or can do will save us. It is merely according to God’s pleasure and will that some are saved.
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
The problem i see with people who reject this doctrine, is that often the arguments come from what we (as sinful human people) think is ‘fair and just’. But we have to remember that we see ‘but a poor reflection’ of God, and some things are kept to his secret will. And also the doctrine of predestination is a glorious one according to the apostle Paul
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Exegetically a conditional predestination does not hold. So i feel it far better to go with what the Bible says rather than try to understand the mind of God and what we consider to be fair.
I honestly can tell you that since i have looked into these doctrines, my faith has grown, my joy has grown, not the reverse. Although i know that some in this world are not of God’s sheep or elect i also know that God is fatihful, good and Holy in His actions. This doctrine brings us to our knees as it should. We ought to have fear and reverence for our God.
If you reject this doctrine maybe you can explain for me how you view the Bible’s teaching on election and what scriptures bring you to this conclusion. See to me the test is in the scriptures, not in philosophical reasoning!
I apologize for not being able to answer the comments in a timely fashion. There are several issues that have demanded my time including a building project. We are finally building a studio for filming videos and desperately needed office space for our production and printing equipment. Over the next few months we will be faced with many decisions that will determine how far our money stretches and the building crew and disruption of our living space will likely keep me gone for periods of time so I hope that all will have patience as I struggle to keep up. I know that I have several important comments to respond to and I will attend to them over the next couple of days.
Mark,
You said:
This is the kind of prayer that a non-Calvinist would pray. The problem that I have with it is that it doesn’t match up with the Calvinist world view. If it is true that God determines from eternity past who will and who won’t be saved and that his decisions have nothing to do with any human, and that His decisions are unchangeable as they are set in stone as “elections”, then it doesn’t seem reasonable to pray for the unsaved as if God would do something different than what He had already determined from eternity past.
For example if one of your children was one of the elect, then God will have mercy on them whether you pray or not and certainly your prayers cannot be a reason for their election or else that would be considered synergism by Calvinist definition.
Also if another one of your children was one of the elected as eternally reprobate, God will never answer your prayers on their behalf. And it would seem to be going against God’s will if you would pray for God to do something that He has arbitrarily decided not to do before your child was born.
This seems to me to be a great problem because it would be the Calvinist definition of synergism. After all if we cannot even respond to God through our own faith or else it is defined as synergism, then how on earth can another human responding to God’s call to pray not also be synergism? For surely if our own faith that would move God to save us is called “works” and “synergism” by Calvinists, then the faith and prayers of another human on our behalf should also be called “works” and “synergism”. It is a flaw in Calvinism that makes the system inconsistent and prejudiced.
Now I don’t believe this way myself, so I agree with you that we should pray for our children, but if I was a Calvinist I would want to be a consistent Calvinist, one who followed the system to its logical conclusion. It makes prayer a very inconsistent venture, making it a synergistic event while denying that God can change His mind on election.
I agree that to sit back and do nothing is wrong, but many consistent Calvinists have done just that choosing to follow the logic of the entire system. After all if God has already chosen and no elect will fail to be saved whether anyone prays for them or not, why risk praying for one who is reprobate who cannot be saved, or pray for one who cannot fail to be saved? Prayer is made into a jolly good waste of time – thus the consistent Calvinist will sit by and do nothing.
It is so amazing that the system of Calvinism teaches this synergism while calling non-Calvinists as synergistic and making fun of them as “working” for their salvation. It is an inconsistency that has not been answered successfully by those who embrace the system. Everything has to be relegated to a “mystery” when inconsistency is found. I find this incredibly sad.
Like I said, I must certainly be ordained not to be a Calvinist if that system is true, because its inconsistencies do not show the glory of God.
Mark,
You said:
Believe me, if I believed this, I would say it outright. I do not believe that Calvinists are for the most part sheep in wolves clothing. I do believe that the system is false when compared by the Bible, and I do believe that my brothers and sisters that are Calvinists have been misled in this area, but I do not believe that they are not brethren in Christ. I count them as dear brothers and sisters in Christ and those who love the Lord Jesus as I do and who love the brethren as I do will enter heaven together so I dare not call my brother a heretic or a wolf in sheep’s clothing unless there was evidence elsewhere that my brother was not a believer but a wolf. I do not take that kind of judgment lightly.
Sure.
Mark,
You said