Wow Jac! You sound like me nowJac wrote:I wouldn't say it is assurance of salvation so much as assurance of fellowship. Have you ever wondered about your relationship with God, not whether or not you HAVE it, but the status of it? Have you ever wondered "how you are doing" or if you are in His will? Good works and good fruit are assurance of our fellowship with Him, not of our salvation. We know we are saved because we have believed in Jesus for eternal life (John 3:16).
(as Jac faints).Byblos, maybe you have fellowship mixed up with salvation.Byblos wrote:Wow Jac! You sound like me nowJac wrote:I wouldn't say it is assurance of salvation so much as assurance of fellowship. Have you ever wondered about your relationship with God, not whether or not you HAVE it, but the status of it? Have you ever wondered "how you are doing" or if you are in His will? Good works and good fruit are assurance of our fellowship with Him, not of our salvation. We know we are saved because we have believed in Jesus for eternal life (John 3:16).
yep, that is how I was using it to describe your repeated categorization of my soteriology as "works-based". Let us look at the last straw man you made:Jac3510 wrote:The actual idea of a straw man is to put forward a position the opponent doesn't hold to and then procede to tear that down.
you may think that you have supplied some logical conclusions, but the above exchange shows nothing of the sort...What I am doing is pointing out the logical conclusions of your various positions.
It is immediately obvious that no single verse or passage provides a comprehensive or exhaustive explanation of any given doctrine. If we want to understand a biblical doctrine, and even further, if we want to understand how biblical doctrines work together, we have to examine a variety of texts..... In other words, we take a passage, or a series of passages, that relate to a subect, and we study each one in its own context. Through this study, we come to a series of inductively supported conclusions. This is the general goal of Biblical Theology, to come to inductively supported propositions relating to various doctrines.
interesting stuff Jac....let us see where I went so terribly wrong. Wrt Matt 7 I said:What you have done, though, is take a series of conclusions (i.e., election) and then interpreted various texts in that light. For example, you have taken a particular conclusion with reference to what it means to "know," and have interpreted Matt. 7:20-23 in that light. That is backwards. Or, again, you have taken a particular tree/fruit motif and interpreted Matt 7:14-19 in that light, which is again backwards. That's why you are going to be inconsistent, and that is I find several aspects of your soteriology to be works based.
thanks for the info...not a whole lot in my history texts about this issue.The two sides - the Lordship group and the Free Grace group - clashed in the eighteenth century in what is called the Marrow Controversy. The battle has been raging ever since.
actually it is only stated that they claim that they did things in Jesus' name, but assuming that they did what they claimed I would correct your words as follows:Then you need to reread my exegesis of this passage. You agree that these people are offering a defense. They are saying, "God, this is why you should not damn us!" That is what a defense IS. They appeal to their works to save them. Now, bear in mind that the works they did in life, they did in Jesus' name. What does that tell me? That tells me that there are "many" who do works in Christ's name who are not regenerate. Just because someone professes to be a Christian - just because some acts like a Christian - just because someone does the work of a Christian - that is in no way an indication of their spiritual condition.
I'll stick with Christ's suggestion to look at the fruit...as the real root (one's heart) is beyond my visionThus, we come to the saying, "Inspect the root, not the fruit."
no the oppositeSo you differentiate between works (casting out demons) and fruit?
it is possible...it is also possible that Jesus starts a second topic at v. 21....in either case, the works described in v. 22 would not be good fruit. Prophesying in Jesus' name w/o being known by Jesus will result in false prophesy.Wouldn't you agree that the "fruit" in Matt. 7:15-20 is the same as the works of the false prophets in 21-23?
No, it is never that we "deserve" our salvation...Jesus has "bought" it...His work and His work alone acquired my salvation, nothing I do counts toward it.We can let the meritorious idea drop for now . . . we have enough to deal with without getting into this. If it comes up again, we can deal with it. All I was pointing out was that you have a problem with the idea that a person can "get saved" and then live in deep, unrepentant sin. Such a person shouldn't be saved because that would be a mockery of God. Thus, the logical conclusion to your claim is that we have to be good after we are saved. God makes us "deserve" our salvation.
giving this understanding of literal interpretations it seems pretty well anyone who holds to any level of inerrancy would consider himself to be a "literalist"...but nice to see you recognize that figures of speech exist and that all words are not to be taken literally (trad. defn)Would you like me to be more literal? Very well. When I say I am a staunch literalist, I am referring to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation.... These are literal interpretations because they take the text for what it is, including figures of speech, teaching methods, etc.
You always have to have the last word, don't you?FFC wrote:Byblos, maybe you have fellowship mixed up with salvation.Byblos wrote:Wow Jac! You sound like me nowJac wrote:I wouldn't say it is assurance of salvation so much as assurance of fellowship. Have you ever wondered about your relationship with God, not whether or not you HAVE it, but the status of it? Have you ever wondered "how you are doing" or if you are in His will? Good works and good fruit are assurance of our fellowship with Him, not of our salvation. We know we are saved because we have believed in Jesus for eternal life (John 3:16).
Only time will tellByblos wrote:You always have to have the last word, don't you?FFC wrote:Byblos, maybe you have fellowship mixed up with salvation.Byblos wrote:Wow Jac! You sound like me nowJac wrote:I wouldn't say it is assurance of salvation so much as assurance of fellowship. Have you ever wondered about your relationship with God, not whether or not you HAVE it, but the status of it? Have you ever wondered "how you are doing" or if you are in His will? Good works and good fruit are assurance of our fellowship with Him, not of our salvation. We know we are saved because we have believed in Jesus for eternal life (John 3:16).
No, I don't see an assumption. I see a logical necessity. Did you not sayJac: You reject that because it means that an evil person can believe in Christ, be saved, continue being evil, and not be thrown into Hell.The fact that you have a problem with that tells me that you believe some people don't deserve salvation (see how you have made an assumption and incorrectly put forward my position?)
You then clarified - I'll bold the relevant parts:ttoews wrote:God will not be mocked and the attitude you describe here (for the hypothetical person) is not only mocking but blasphemous. Blasphemy will be forgiven, but can't be the act that achieves salvation. Consider:
Matt 10: 32-33 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
The "deal" as you call it and describe it is simply not offered.
So, unless I am reading you wrong (which is different from presenting a straw man), you are arguing that a genuine faith produces commitment. A "false faith" doesn't produce commitment and is thus a mockery to God. God won't save the latter person because he hasn't believed.ttoews wrote:so you didn't think the passage that I asked you to consider supported my point. Fine. But what about my point itself? It was that God will not be mocked.Jac3510 wrote:First, as you know, you should be REALLY careful with the NIV. .....
Now, do these passages say these people lose their salvation?
later you asked a related question:I don't know where you get the "only" from, but it matters not. The Gospel of John contains enough information to come to saving faith. To summarize, it tells me that Jesus was with God and is God, that He lowered Himself and was made flesh, that out of His and His Father's love for us He died on the cross as the remedy for our sin so that if we believe in Him we can have eternal life. The question then, is what does "belief" entail? Is it mere belief (if such were possible)or is it a belief that entails commitment?Jac3510 wrote:Now, ttoews: let me just ask you one question while you digest all of this. If the gospel of John is the ONLY book of the Bible written specifically to bring non-believers to saving faith in Christ (John 20:30-31) . . . heck, even if it is just written for that very purpose . . . then doesn't it follow that by reading it, you should have enough information to come to saving faith?
I actually flat misread you here. You said, "Notwithstanding the absence of any deserving people God has predetermined salvation for some of the undeserving." I now notice that "Notwithstanding . . . people" is an introductory clause. Let me copy it in the sense I read it:ttoews wrote:ttoews: ...my position is that all people don't deserve salvation. Notwithstanding the absence of any deserving people God has predetermined salvation for some of the undeserving...and He did this according to His good pleasure(note how I must clarify my position in the face of your error?)
Jac: In fact, you say that those predestined deserve salvation here. (now note how you put forward a position (for me) that is in direct opposition to the one I have just stated....when I say "all people don't deserve", you claim I say "some people deserve")
Two things. First, as to why you haven't done things the way I have suggested, look at your own methodology:now call me crazy, but this sounds to me like I have defined the issues between our two views and am am suggesting an approach that is the same as the first one you described...yet you claim that I have used the second. You know nothing of my personal history nor what studies I undertook before I arrived at my soteriology, so one must ask where you got your presuppositions wrt my methodology? You might have read theologians before you got around to reading the bible and then squeezed the meaning of scripture into the views of those theologians, but I started with the Bible and took a long time before I turned to the works of any theologians.
So you are hinghing your entire theological position on the fact that they didn't REALLY do things in Jesus' name. You say they only THOUGHT they just mistaken? And where do you find that in the text? That's more of an assumption than I have ever made.actually it is only stated that they claim that they did things in Jesus' name, but assuming that they did what they claimed I would correct your words as follows:
Now, bear in mind that the works they did in life, they thought they did in Jesus' name. What does that tell me? That tells me that there are "many" who think they do works in Christ's name who are not regenerate. Just because someone claims to do works for Christ - that is in no way an indication of their spiritual condition or that Jesus "knows" them.
Or you could stick with Christ's suggestion to look at the fruit of their doctrine. Besides, how do you equate "real fruit" with the heart? Fruit is outward. The heart is inward. If a man's heart is good, he will produce good fruit. If his heart is evil, he will produce evil fruit. Thus, the heart is not the fruit. You can, though, ask a man what he believes. I don't care how great you appear to be on the outside. I don't care what fabulous things you think you have done in Jesus' name. If you turn around and deny that Jesus is the Christ, or if you deny His resurrection, or if you deny salvation by faith alone, or any of these such things, then you aren't saved. Period. Thus, by your "fruit" I know you.I'll stick with Christ's suggestion to look at the fruit...as the real root (one's heart) is beyond my vision
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
with this remark you seem to be in agreement with what I have said for one obeys (not ignores) a master, otherwise He is no master.“So then,”—based on everything that came before, in this case, the statement in verse eleven that we are raised with Christ, living in him—Paul now argues that we have a new master, not the flesh, but the Spirit.
yah, you'd think God woulda saw that coming (if indeed, there was a great misunderstanding)Paul then makes the statement in verse fourteen that has sadly been the root of great misunderstanding
at this point you disregard what Paul has already stated at verse 9. Prior to verse 9 Paul is contemplating 2 sorts of people...those who live according to the flesh and those who live according to the Spirit. Paul's contemplation concludes by clarifying that you live according to the Spirit if the Spirit dwells in you. For Paul it is quite simple. Believe and the Spirit will be given to you. If the Spirit dwells in you, you will be given eternal life and you will live according to the Spirit.(v. 9) If it were possible to have the Spirit w/o any effects, then Paul should have described three types of people: those in the flesh b/c the Spirit doesn't dwell in them, those in the Spirit b/c the Spirit dwells in them and those in the flesh despite the Spirit dwelling in them....but he only describes two types.“For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” Notice again the “for.” Paul is explaining the reason for the previous statement. Those who live by the Spirit will reap life. Why? Because they are sons of God. Those who live by the flesh reap death. Why? Because they are not the sons of God. Does that mean that those who walk in the flesh are not believers? No, it does not. Nor does it mean that those who walk in the flesh are unsaved. A great promise is given here...
This is just wrong. Paul is not distinguishing at all between "sons" and "children". Rather, Paul is using the terms "children" and "sons" to mean his fellow believers, his brothers in Christ. Paul never states that only some believers are sons and the rest of the believers are merely children (or daughters?) We all receive the same Spirit...a Spirit of sonship. We all call God our "Father". There is only one Spirit (in Romans 8 He is called the Spirit of Christ, of God and of sonship). It isn't that some believers get only a Spirit of "childrenship" or "daughtership" and some get a Spirit of "sonship".And here, Paul uses a different word. He does not say that we are sons, but that we are His children, for all believers are children, but not all believers are sons. As we saw previously, only those who walk by the Spirit are considered sons. All believers are children, but only disciples are sons.
please explain this....what do you mean by "worthy" and "kingdom"...is it that by being a disciple/son one merits reigning with Christ in a millennial kingdom?....is yours a soteriology that is strongly tied to millenialism?However, if God's children suffer with Christ, then they are co-heirs with Christ, considered as sons, and worthy to inherit the kingdom.
Jac, if such was indeed taught "so strongly", don't you find it surprising that the distinction between "children" and "sons" was missed by so many for so long.Again, this passage strongly teaches that all who are justified by faith alone in Christ are children, but only those who walk with and suffer with Christ are considered sons, or heirs, and will reign with Him.
Here I agree that Paul is making a distinction between "child" (which in this case means infant child) and "son" (by which he means adult son), but you are wrong to suggest that Paul equates "child" with immature believer and son with "mature believer".This passage teaches much the same thing as Romans 8:12-17. Paul is explaining to the Galatians that they are sons of God through Christ, not slaves to God through the Law, and therefore, they are to live by the Spirit rather than walk by the flesh (that is, rather than trying to obtain the righteousness of God by works of the Law).
It could be immediately objected that Paul calls the Galatians sons, and thus all believers are sons. But, as always, context is in order. In 4:1 Paul says that “as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything.” Therefore, there is a definite contrast set forward between a child and a mature believer, as son, as it were.
and by Paul's reasoning all the children of God who came before God's Son was sent are like infants (their inheritance is held in trust for them)...note these infants would include the likes of Moses, David, Isaiah, Elijah etc. for they were all under the law. On the other hand, by Paul's reasoning all the children of God who came after God's Son was sent are like adults (their inheritance is placed in their own hands and not in the hands of a trustee). The contrast that Paul is making is not between mature believer (son) and immature believer (child) but between a pre-incarnation child of God (child) and post-incarnation child of God (son).Careful examination of verses 1-3 teach us that Paul considered the Law “childish” and resulted in enslavement. Faith in Christ was “mature” and resulted in freedom and authority. Thus, Paul says that Christ came to redeem those under the Law that they may no longer be childish, but rather they might be sons—mature believers no longer enslaved to the Law.
Again maturity of belief is not what established sonship. At v 3:36 Paul states: for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith....it is faith (not spiritual maturity) that establishing sonship...the same faith that saves.. Being mature believers advocating simple faith in Christ, they are sons, and as sons, they are intimate with God and are waiting to receive their inheritance. However, to go back to the old ways to is to be childish and immature, losing that intimacy and authority.
I was working through this reply, and I found myself wondering what was going on. I have already dealt with everthing you've addressed throughout this post . . . then I found the problem. You asked for an exegesis of Romans 8:12-14 separately from Romans 8:5-10. Yet, in your disagreement with me, you go all the way back to verse 9! So, rather than redo my entire argument from scratch, I'll just repost my original argument and let you take another shot at it:I expect that you will not like the NIV version of verse 9 where it states that the addressees "are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you." If the NIV is correct with its interpretation then it would seem that Romans 8:9 presents a problem for you in that if the Holy Spirit is given to/dwells in all believers (which I believe we agree upon) then all believers would be controlled by the Spirit. The RSV renders it "you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you". Does "in the Spirit" mean controlled by the Spirit? Romans 7:5 reads "While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death." So when one is "in the flesh" one is subject to the work of the sinful passions and produces corresponding fruit....and it follows that when one is "in the Spirit" one is subject to the work of the Spirit and produces corresponding fruit.
The long and short, here, is that there is a textual differene between being "in" the Spirit and walking "according to" the Spirit. Because (the "if" in v. 9 you pointed out) we are "in" the Spirit, we have the ability to walk "according to" the Spirit, which was not the case when we we "in" the flesh. Once you see this contrast, the Son/Child motif shouldn't be too hard.Jac3510 wrote:I included verses five through seven because they provide very important context for this eight through ten. As a matter of general context, very briefly:
- For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. (Romans 8:5-10)
“For” connects 8:5-7 with 8:1-4. Paul has stated that there is no condemnation for those in Christ. The moment you are saved you are in Christ, and being in Christ, you will never again be in danger of the fires of Hell. The reason this is true is that the being in Christ frees us from the law of sin and death. The Mosaic Law tried to do this, but it could not, because it worked through the flesh. However, Jesus overcame the flesh and fulfilled the Mosaic Law “so that the requirements of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Thus, if believers walk according to the Spirit, they have fulfilled the Old Law.
This is true, Paul says, because “those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh . . .” Again, carefully note the argument: believers in Christ are not condemned. They are not condemned because Christ has set them free from the law of sin and death by perfectly keeping the Old Law. The Old Law could not do it because it was weak in the flesh. Therefore, when believers in Christ (who are not condemned) walk in the Spirit they walk in Christ's righteousness, thus fulfilling the Old Law just as He did. However, note that believers must walk in the Spirit for this to be true! You see, those who walk “according to the flesh set their minds on things of the flesh.” This is true of both the believer and the unbeliever. So, we are dealing with the proposition now, not that we are saved, but that we are or are not fulfilling the old requirements of righteousness. In short, are we walking in the Spirit, and if so, what does that mean?
Paul presents two groups of people: those “who are according to the flesh” and those “who are according to the Spirit.” The former “set their minds on things of the flesh.” The latter set their minds on “things of the Spirit.” Paul now states that the mind set on the flesh is death, whereas the mind set on the Spirit is life. We are not contrasting eternal life and eternal death. It is evident that Christians can walk “according to the flesh” or “according to the Spirit.” 7:14-25 makes this very plain! What Paul is dealing with here is experiential death and experiential life.
Consider again the proposition we are dealing with, which is the fulfillment of righteousness as per the Old Law. We know that those in the Old Testament were not saved by keeping the Law. Therefore, fulfilling the Law did not result in salvation. It is wrong, then, to argue that by walking in the Spirit, we keep the Law, and therefore are saved. However, keeping the Law did result in life in the experiential sense. If the Jews kept God's commandments, He promised them peace, prosperity, etc. However, we know from history that they constantly abandoned and broke the Law because of their sinful nature, and therefore, they experienced death, not in an eternal sense, but in an experiential sense.
So, Paul says here that the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, and verse seven tells us this is true “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God.” Being hostile it “does not subject itself to the law of God.” Breaking this law naturally results in death. In fact, Paul states that “it is not even able to do so.” That is, the natural mind is not capable of subjecting itself to God's law (hello, Total Depravity!).
Verse nine presents a logical conclusion: those who are “in the flesh” cannot please God. It is extremely important to note here that Paul changes his wording. In 8:1-8, he has been speaking of those who walk “according to the flesh” (kata sarka). He contrasts that with those who walk “according to the Spirit” (kata pneuma). However, in verse nine, he says those “in the flesh.” There is a huge difference in kata (“according to, in harmony with”) and en (“in, on, among”). Unbelievers are “in the flesh.” Consider 7:5, which uses this same phrase, “For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.”
Needless to say, those “in the flesh”—that is unbelievers, have minds “according to the flesh.” Therefore, unbelievers, and any according to the flesh, cannot please God, because, again, such minds are hostile to the things of God.
“However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit.” “However” in this verse translates the strong contrasting conjunction alla rather than the weak contrasting de. “Unbelievers cannot please God,” Paul says, “but you are not unbelievers, you are believers!” Note that Paul says his readers are “in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.” “If” here could be taken grammatically as either “if” or “since,” but neither affects the argument much. Paul is saying that those who have the Spirit in them are in the Spirit, and therefore, they are capable of pleasing God, for they are capable of setting their minds on the Spirit.
Verse ten of this passage requires little further comment. If Christ is in us, then even though our bodies are dead in sin (thus, allowing us to set our minds according to the flesh), our spirits are made alive in Christ, and thus, we can set our minds on the Spirit, being now able to please God.
Before we leave off this passage, we should note that the NIV translates “in the flesh” and “in the Spirit” as “controlled by the sinful nature” and “controlled by the Spirit” respectively. That's just the danger in using a formal equivalent. The Greek for “control” or “led by” is not in these verses, but the position “in” is the preposition used. In fact, it is surprising that they used a verb to translate a preposition in the first place! Theological bias plays a large role in translation at times . . . that is simply the case here.
To conclude, then . . . Paul here is teaching that Christians, unlike un-believers, have the Holy Spirit within them, and therefore they can choose to walk in that Spirit. When they walk in that Spirit, they fulfill, through Christ, the requirements of the Law and experience life and peace. This, in turn, is because Christ fulfilled the Law in His flesh, and by trusting in Him, we receive His righteousness, guaranteeing that we will never come into condemnation.
.
.
.Note that I included verses twelve through fourteen for context. This is a very commonly misunderstood passage that teaches a profound truth, but in my mind has often been horribly distorted!
- So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—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. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, those are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba, Father!” The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him(Romans 8:12-17)
“So then,”—based on everything that came before, in this case, the statement in verse eleven that we are raised with Christ, living in him—Paul now argues that we have a new master, not the flesh, but the Spirit. We are “under obligation” to Christ. We are not under obligation to the flesh, to “live according to” it. Paul then explains why. “For”—a transitional word of explanation—“if you are living according to the flesh, you must die.” This is in direct contrast with the primary idea, which is that because we are raised to life in Christ, we are under obligation to Him. However, if we live according to the flesh, we do not live, as we should, but instead we die. Paul then offers a strong contrast. Living under the flesh brings death, “but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” The first obvious contrast is life versus death. But the cause of these are equally contrasted. Note that “living according to” the flesh brings death, where as “putting to death the deeds of the body” brings life. In other words, Paul is exhorting and warning his readers concerning their lifestyles.
Paul then makes the statement in verse fourteen that has sadly been the root of great misunderstanding: “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” Notice again the “for.” Paul is explaining the reason for the previous statement. Those who live by the Spirit will reap life. Why? Because they are sons of God. Those who live by the flesh reap death. Why? Because they are not the sons of God. Does that mean that those who walk in the flesh are not believers? No, it does not. Nor does it mean that those who walk in the flesh are unsaved. A great promise is given here. When we are in strong fellowship with God, we are sons. That is, we are mature believers, ready to inherit not simply eternal life, for that is the reward of all God's children, but we are ready to inherit the very kingdom of God. We are ready to rule with Him! This is seen even the Roman society. It was not uncommon for a man to look among his children and not find one worthy to bear the family name and honors, so he might find another man of virtue and adopt him as his own, leaving to that man his estate. His natural children were still his children, but they lost the privilege of their inheritance.
In verse fifteen, Paul continues his argument, beginning with another “for.” Remember that the main thrust of this argument is not that those who walk by the Spirit are sons. The main thrust of the argument is that we are to live by the Spirit for we are under obligation to it. So Paul provides a second explanation. We have not received again a spirit of fear, but rather we have received a Spirit of adoption as sons, and by this Spirit, we cry out “Abba! Father!” We are to walk in the Spirit because God is our father. As John MacArthur, who is absolutely no friend of the position I am advocating, points out, the spirit of adoption here is not so much referring as the transaction of adoption, but rather assurance that comes with the promise of adoption. As an adopted son may call his father “Abba,” so we may call our Father “Abba.” It is a word of intimacy that is not available with reference to God otherwise, and this intimacy is available to all believers. Thus, because we are so intimate with God, we are to walk in the Spirit, and to walk in that Spirit is life, but to walk in the flesh is death.
Finally, we come to the last part of the passage and again another common misunderstanding. Paul states that the Spirit testifies “with our spirit that we are children of God.” Paul is not beginning a new argument but further the case of the previous point, that we, as believers, have direct access to God not previously available to us, and not available to any outside of Christ. Many have mistaken this to mean that the Spirit speaks to our own spirits, assuring us of our salvation. Grammatically, this is a possibility, but the word itself literally means “to bear witness along with.” It is better to take this to mean that the Holy Spirit bears witness along with us that we are children. Who are we and the Holy Spirit bearing witness to? None other than God the Father! Again, this is demonstrated in Roman culture. When a man adopted someone into his family, he had to have seven witnesses to confirm the transaction for it to be legal. Likewise, Jewish law required the witness of two or three witnesses before something could be considered true. Therefore, when we cry out “Abba!”, the Spirit is a witness to God that we are, in fact, His children. And here, Paul uses a different word. He does not say that we are sons, but that we are His children, for all believers are children, but not all believers are sons. As we saw previously, only those who walk by the Spirit are considered sons. All believers are children, but only disciples are sons. And as if to make sure his readers did not forget that vital point, Paul states “and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.” We are children, and therefore, we are heirs if we suffer with Him. Only children can be heirs. A servant can suffer with his master and it will profit him nothing. Men can suffer for God, and it will profit them nothing unless they are His children. However, if God's children suffer with Christ, then they are co-heirs with Christ, considered as sons, and worthy to inherit the kingdom.
Again, this is a profound passage, sadly misunderstood by many. It has robbed many of the assurance of their salvation by men who believe that all Christians are “led by the Spirit” and are “putting to death the deeds of the body.” MacArthur, in answering the question of how we are led, rightly pointed to the illumination of the Scriptures. Thus, if we are properly understanding the Scriptures, we can be sure we are saved, but if we do not understand them, then we are forced to doubt our salvation. And again, these men teach that the subjective witness of the Spirit to us confirms for us our salvation, which simply is not true. How many Christians doubt because they don't hear what they believe should be a “still, small voice.” Why, if they heard that voice, then they would not doubt! And yet how many men are absolutely deceived into believing they are being led by the Spirit, and being confirmed by Him to their own hearts as well? That is, after all, the nature of deception. How many of these will stand at the judgment and cry “Lord, Lord!”?
Again, this passage strongly teaches that all who are justified by faith alone in Christ are children, but only those who walk with and suffer with Christ are considered sons, or heirs, and will reign with Him.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
thanks for pointing out the other stuff wrt Romans 8 that you had written...nice to deal with it all at once. So going back to your previous remarks I read:Jac3510 wrote:Like I said, I suggest you work through this again. If you are going to appeal to a context, you have to reference what I've already written on that as well.
Agreed. Paul contrasts the two groups in verses 5 through 9.Paul presents two groups of people: those “who are according to the flesh” and those “who are according to the Spirit.” The former “set their minds on things of the flesh.” The latter set their minds on “things of the Spirit.” Paul now states that the mind set on the flesh is death, whereas the mind set on the Spirit is life.....
“However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit.” “However” in this verse translates the strong contrasting conjunction alla rather than the weak contrasting de. “Unbelievers cannot please God,” Paul says, “but you are not unbelievers, you are believers!”
verse 5 does not say that the 2nd group is just capable of setting their minds on the Spirit, but it says that they actually have their mind set on the things of the Spirit. Now I suppose you might want to argue that Paul contrasts non-disciples with disciples (v.5), non-disciples with disciples (v.6), and then unbelievers with believers (v.7-9)...but that would require Paul to be considering four groups not two, and there is no indication that Paul has switched (in mid-stream) from the original two groups.Paul is saying that those who have the Spirit in them are in the Spirit, and therefore, they are capable of pleasing God, for they are capable of setting their minds on the Spirit.
this just may be your theological bias showing...which is what you later claim wrt the NIV's translation of v. 9:Verse nine presents a logical conclusion: those who are “in the flesh” cannot please God. It is extremely important to note here that Paul changes his wording. In 8:1-8, he has been speaking of those who walk “according to the flesh” (kata sarka). He contrasts that with those who walk “according to the Spirit” (kata pneuma). However, in verse nine, he says those “in the flesh.” There is a huge difference in kata (“according to, in harmony with”) and en (“in, on, among”).
well one possible reason for the NIV's use of "controlled" would be what has preceded verse 9. Paul uses "in the flesh" and "in the Spirit" which are a figures of speech and as such translating the figure of speech (which uses a preposition) to a phrase that contains a verb may be absolutely the correct thing to do. You would agree (I think) that the 1st group is controlled in that they can not subject themselves to the law of God nor can they please God. Obviously an element of control exists for that first group and this is also evident in Rom 7:5 which reads: "For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death." It seems that you want to argue that those in the Spirit merely have the potential to avoid the sinful passions that are at work to bear fruit for death...I look at Romans 7 & 8 and I see more than just a potential as being promised (and in part b/c I see your distinction between sons and children as an entirely artificial one).Before we leave off this passage, we should note that the NIV translates “in the flesh” and “in the Spirit” as “controlled by the sinful nature” and “controlled by the Spirit” respectively. That's just the danger in using a formal equivalent. The Greek for “control” or “led by” is not in these verses, but the position “in” is the preposition used. In fact, it is surprising that they used a verb to translate a preposition in the first place! Theological bias plays a large role in translation at times . . . that is simply the case here.
so then there is assurance for those that can see the fruit of the Spirit in their lives and those that can't get a wake up call...sounds about right to me.And while here, let me just point out the practical ramifications of your position, which I did in the above quoted exegesis, but I really want to hit it hard: according to your understanding of the text, a person cannot know that they are saved. There is no absolute assurance, because if you are really saved, you will walk by the Spirit.
well if you are going to speculate....then why not ask yourself why God didn't remain in residence on earth? Wouldn't His presence make a far better testimony to this world than any Christians? I guess we will eventually find out why He did things the way He did.Well, if God is going to keep us from habitually sinning, why stop there? Why not just stop us from ever sinning? Wouldn't perfect Christians make a far better testimony to this world? After all, we could say that, as Christians, we walk by the Spirit, because we are controlled by the Spirit!
and what if the simple believer chooses to absolutely reject God for all eternity?...does God honor that choice? if not, why would He honor any choice to sin by the simple believer?But, that's not the way God works, is it? He gives us the choice, and disciplines us if we choose wrongly.
actually slaves are productive...otherwise there is no sense having them....I don't know where Paul contemplates slaves as being unproductive. Slaves are bound to obey their master and so a slave to the flesh would obey the desires of the flesh and a slave to God/God's law would obey the desires of God. Your efforts to make your particular distinction between a child of God and a son of God simply fall short. (IMHO)When we are being led by the Spirit, we are sons, mature in our faith, and solid witnesses to this world. As children, we are no better than slaves, for we are unproductive, and, in fact, actually a burden.
no, what I am actually saying is that God won't save someone that has rejected Him and mocks Him and wants no part of Him even if that person simply believed at some time in the past.Jac3510 wrote:So, unless I am reading you wrong (which is different from presenting a straw man), you are arguing that a genuine faith produces commitment. A "false faith" doesn't produce commitment and is thus a mockery to God. God won't save the latter person because he hasn't believed.
I have already...you equate "not messing it up" with "meriting it". You claim to understand your own position wrt heaven....where God eliminates the sinful nature so that people will not mess up in heaven. Does it follow logically that He therefore makes people able to merit heaven? Surely you will answer the same as me....which is, nothing we do causes us to merit salvation or heaven...it is only what Christ did that has any merit.God gives you the Holy Spirit to make sure that you don't mess it up. He makes you be able to merit it. Now, can you show me where the fault in my logic is?
not imposing...taking into account and considering how other authors of the NT used the word.Notice how you have them come to a conclusion on the definition of "bad fruit" by imposing on them the definition of "fruit" from other passages, i.e., the Gospels, Acts, etc.?
...and if the context clearly showed "teaching" as you claim, you wouldn't find that so many people (me included) disagree with your interpretation....what you claim is not clear unless one makes the same assumptions that you make.Now, in this particular case, if you do that, what you will find is a variety of uses for this phrase. But, let's say that in every single instance, it always refers to behavior. Does that mean it refers to behavior here? NO. If the context clearly shows it is "teaching," ....
ahh yes, that might be correct if one assumes that it would be impossible for people to mistake "good" deeds done for self-serving reasons as actual good deeds.As it stands, the context of this passage simply does not allow for "fruit" to be behavior, because the context itself rules that out by saying that these false prophets look like sheep externally.
yah, some ...and I have extensive experience in interpreting and explaining various writings...however, if I tried to claim that my interpretation was superior b/c it was "inductive" I would convince no one, but I would get a laugh or two. Labels don't count at all...coherency and validity do.Have you been trained in inductive Bible study, ttoews?
that is a rather profound observation.But when you apply the wrong principles to biblical interpretation, you get the wrong conclusions.
I lean towards the branch of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation that does not read things into passagesThere is an underlying theme to our debate. Have you noticed that it is our hermeneutic that is more and more frequentely coming up? You accuse me of dividing the text and making unnecessary distinctions. I accuse you of not placing texts in their appropriate context. Ultimately, our disagreement is rooted in our different hermeneutical approach. I believe in a grammatical-historical method of interpretation, and you don't seem to as much. I don't know what you interpretational theory is. What would it be, exactly?
more accurately I am saying that they didn't actually do things for Jesus. I get that from Jesus saying "I did not know you". Like the sons of Sceva, they may have tried to use the name of Jesus...but that doesn't mean what they did, they did for Jesus...So you are hinghing your entire theological position on the fact that they didn't REALLY do things in Jesus' name. You say they only THOUGHT they just mistaken? And where do you find that in the text? That's more of an assumption than I have ever made.
beats me...but then again that is not the way it is...the works someone does are a strong indication (but not an infallible indication) of their spiritual condition and that Jesus 'knows' them...If the works someone does "is in no way an indication of their spiritual conditon or that Jesus 'knows' them," then how do we know someone by their fruit?
did you read "fruit" instead of "root"?Or you could stick with Christ's suggestion to look at the fruit of their doctrine. Besides, how do you equate "real fruit" with the heart?
I'll stick with Christ's suggestion to look at the fruit...as the real root (one's heart) is beyond my vision
Period?...now this can't really be what you meant....I thought that you believed that a person could turn around and deny that Jesus is the Christ, and deny His resurrection, and deny salvation by faith alone, and all of these such things, and teach salvation by works and become a Satanist and blaspheme the Father and Son in all ways imaginable, but as long as that person (at some time in the past) simply believed for a moment, then that person would be saved. So what fruits would you reference so as to know that simple believer turned Satanist?I don't care how great you appear to be on the outside. I don't care what fabulous things you think you have done in Jesus' name. If you turn around and deny that Jesus is the Christ, or if you deny His resurrection, or if you deny salvation by faith alone, or any of these such things, then you aren't saved. Period.
in part...by this question you seem to presume that fruit must be either teachings or deeds....it's both.See, we still don't have any practical way to apply your position. How would you recognize a false prophet, ttoews? His behavior?
OK, I'm out. We are not getting anywhere. I meant exactly what I said, and the only reason for this quote is that you aren't trying to see my position. Anyone on this board will know exactly how I will answer that. You are looking for things to argue with, and I'm not doing that anymore. You've been convinced I was wrong from the beginning, and you've not stopped even once to consider what I'm trying to say. This proves it. So, forget Matthew. Forget Romans. Forget all of it, because I'm done. There is no reason to continue a discussion in which ideas are not being exchanged. If the last few posts are your idea of giving an argument due consideration, then there is nothing left to say. You made up your mind a long time ago and are not even trying to see my point. I'll just boil this down as simply as I can:Period?...now this can't really be what you meant....I thought that you believed that a person could turn around and deny that Jesus is the Christ, and deny His resurrection, and deny salvation by faith alone, and all of these such things, and teach salvation by works and become a Satanist and blaspheme the Father and Son in all ways imaginable, but as long as that person (at some time in the past) simply believed for a moment, then that person would be saved. So what fruits would you reference so as to know that simple believer turned Satanist?
That's enough for me. I can't make it any clearer that you are arguing for meritorious, deserved salvation. You don't believe in faith alone. You believe in repentance/commitment alone, that a faith that does not produce repentance/commitment is no faith at all. That is the root of your belief that salvation necessarily produces good works, and it is simply wrong, because it is a denial of the Gospel. You said it yourself in the bolded part above. If a person rejects Christ, even if they have believed in Him, they are still damned. Thus, when Jesus says, "If you just believe in Me, you are saved," then you reply, "No, Lord, that isn't right!" Add whatever you want here. In the end, you make Jesus out to be a liar.ttoews wrote:no, what I am actually saying is that God won't save someone that has rejected Him and mocks Him and wants no part of Him even if that person simply believed at some time in the past.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
