Posted on 04/19/2003 7:32:39 AM PDT by drstevej
Brother Marlowe, Are you part troll?
Cornelius did in Acts.10! Maybe Romans 3:11 is hy[per]bolic to make a point that both Jews and Gentiles are both equally in sin.
A fundamental rule of Scriptural interpretation is that when you can choose between a straightforward interpretation and an obscure interpretation the former is to be preferred. The straightforward interpretation is so clear in this case that the text needs no elaboration: "No one seeks for God." To respond "Cornelius did" is to accuse God of contradication.
There is at least one simpler alternative to understanding Acts 10. Cornelius was a "devout man who feared God with all his household" [Acts 10:2a] because God had already regenerated him. He was already a believer, but one who lacked much knowledge. God singled him out, as the passage indicates, as the first Gentile to give the Holy Spirit to once Peter had arrived, in order to teach the Jews that God doesn't show favoritism. Cornelius' seeking was the response to, and not the cause of, his regeneration.
This view of the text may not be the correct understanding, but it's a reasonable possibility, unlike saying that God really meant "Some people seek God" when he said "No one seeks God."
After all, not all men are as wicked as the description of those who follow in vs 13-18.
This is an astonishing claim: Although the Bible says men are thoroughly wicked -- (None is righteous, no, not one, no one understands, no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one....[Romans 3:10-12]) -- you know better.
You may know better, but I don't. All I know is that the Bible says we're so totally depraved that we're all "dead in sin." My imagination may be too unenlightened, but I just can't see how one could be more wicked than "dead in sin." Maybe "really and truly dead in sin?" Maybe, "I meant it when I said 'dead in sin.'"... But how are these any more clear, any more emphatic than all the "No ones" above?
Amen!
The straightforward interpretation is so clear in this case that the text needs no elaboration: "No one seeks for God."
No, because you are not looking at the entire context of that statement!
Taken in its entire context (not just 'no one seeks God') you would see that Paul is using figurative language in describing all men.
Now, while it is true we area all sinners, and when you break one law you break them all, nevertheless, the discription of the sinners listed did not fit, say the 'rich young ruler' who it is said, Jesus loved (Mk.10:21) but turned away due to his love of money.
To respond "Cornelius did" is to accuse God of contradication.
Not at all.
You are taking the verse out of context.
The fact is that Cornilus is considered a 'devout man' whose prayer God answers by sending to Peter to receive the Gospel.
He is not saved when he is sent since he gets saved as is related by Peter in Acts.11:14,
Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved
There is at least one simpler alternative to understanding Acts 10. Cornelius was a "devout man who feared God with all his household" [Acts 10:2a] because God had already regenerated him. He was already a believer, but one who lacked much knowledge. God singled him out, as the passage indicates, as the first Gentile to give the Holy Spirit to once Peter had arrived, in order to teach the Jews that God doesn't show favoritism. Cornelius' seeking was the response to, and not the cause of, his regeneration.
That does not work because it says on Acts 11:24, 'thou shalt be saved,
Thus, Cornilus could not have already been regenerated before he was sent to Peter, and thus 'saved'.
This view of the text may not be the correct understanding, but it's a reasonable possibility, unlike saying that God really meant "Some people seek God" when he said "No one seeks God."
No one seeks God is a hyperbolic statement showing the depraved state the Jew was really in, while thinking he was close to God.
Paul turns around and states that the Jew does have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.(Rom.10:2)
He (Paul) then points out while the Jew was seeking God with works and not faith, God was going to manifest Himself to the Gentile (who did not seek Him Rom.10:20) to provoke the Jew to jealousy!
After all, not all men are as wicked as the description of those who follow in vs 13-18. This is an astonishing claim: Although the Bible says men are thoroughly wicked -- (None is righteous, no, not one, no one understands, no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one....[Romans 3:10-12]) -- you know better.
The description given does not fit all men, which even Calvinists acknowledge.
While we are sinners, not all men not fall to the level of depravity as described by Paul.
What Paul is doing is bringing the Jew into awareness of his need for a saviour through a figurative language.
You may know better, but I don't. All I know is that the Bible says we're so totally depraved that we're all "dead in sin." My imagination may be too unenlightened, but I just can't see how one could be more wicked than "dead in sin." Maybe "really and truly dead in sin?" Maybe, "I meant it when I said 'dead in sin.'"... But how are these any more clear, any more emphatic than all the "No ones" above?
Yes, we are 'dead' in sin, but that just means we are separated from God.
We need to be saved since we cannot do anything to save ourselves.
However, spiritual death doesn't mean our will is destroyed.
God still gives revelation of Himself through nature for man to desire Him or reject Him (Psa.19, Rom.1:20)
Thus, you might say, that it is always God seeking man and man responding (by seeking more of God) or rejecting that initiative on the part of God. (Jn.12:32)
You have to read that in context, not just as a standalone verse. Moses was begging for mercy for the children of Israel. He wanted to take thier place.
Rev.3:5: "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels."
In context, he is talking to the church members in Sardis who are "worthy". If read in context, they will not lose salvation.
I just don't see where either verse implies all names being in the Book of Life from the begining. If I'm missing something, let please show me. <><
Who said that!
God doesn't want sin and death and it is here!
What God did want was creatures who could freely say yes or no and to get that, He accepted sin and paid for it on the Cross, the symbol of God's love.
You say God wants all men to be saved. But He doesn't get that. All men are not saved.
That is right, because He will not force all men to love Him.
Maybe your supposition is incorrect and God doesn't intend for every man to be saved.
Not according to Spurgeon (1Tim 2:4) or Calvin himself (2Pet.3:9)
Ofcourse, then after admitting that scripture did teach that God did want all men saved they knew there were in a jam, so they went back to the secret will of God.
If God wants to give man the ability to say "no"... Even Lucifer didn't have the ability to thwart God's holy plan.
Sure he did, Lucifer could have not rebelled,(but if he did that, then that would been part of God's Holy Plan), unless you are saying God wanted Lucifer to sin all along (for His glory!)
So, God becomes the author of both Lucifer's sin and Adam's (For His Glory!), while all along telling us He really hates sin!
He may have said "no" but that's just what God intended. Nothing happens that is not God's intent. Nothing surprises God.
It didn't surprise God that Lucifer rebelled, but Lucifer did not have to, God allowed Lucifer's free decision to happen, because God decreed that free will would exist(and by 'free will' I mean real free will, not the Calvinist 'free to do what he wanted but not free to choose an alternative' nonsense).
He's God. He has the final cut.
Yes, He is God and that 'final cut' is based on His Love and mercy for all men (Jn.3:16, 12:32), if man will accept His free gift of salvation (Rom.6:23)
Oh, yea, the name did sound familiar.
Part of God's grace upon us as we read the Bible is our human logic. So when Scripture seems to contradict, God intends for us to logically seek His meaning. For me, a Reformed perspective helps answer those profound questions most clearly and righteously and positively.
Well, in that we have to disagree, since I see the Reformed theology bound in a hopeless maze that makes God responsible for sin, creating rational creatures for the sole purpose of first damning them and then sending to eternal punishment, without any chance!
And then to say that God is fair in doing so boggles the mind!
Your theological system comes down to 'might makes right'.
That is not the God found in the Bible, a Holy God who paid the price that His Holiness demanded with His own life, from His Love.
"No one seeks God" is literal language. Figurative language is metaphorical, e.g., when Jesus says, "I am the door." Just as we don't look for a knob on Jesus when he says the latter, we shouldn't try to understand "No one" as "Some people" when we see the former.
I didn't read closely enough and stand corrected on this point. But recognizing that Cornelius was saved when Peter preached to him, and not before, doesn't magically convert "No one seeks God" to "Some people seek God."
Cornelius did not seek God. God "sought" him. After God called to Cornelius, he naturally responded in prayer. (God's calling doesn't fail any more than anything else he does fails). And God responded to that prayer by sending Peter. Peter preached the gospel, and Cornelius and his whole household responded in God-given faith.
This understanding of the text makes sense, not least because it doesn't conflict with Romans 3. That's not the case with an interpretation that says Cornelius was a seeker of God.
Not so. It comes down to God's might makes right, and that view is fully supported by the Scriptures:
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? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? [Romans 9:20~21]
Granted-- but so did everyone else to. The Anglicans, CAlvinists, Lutherans, and Catholics all liked to roast Anabaptists. It was just assumed that you did it -- 1300 years of Christian history, dating to Augustine and the Donatists, assumed you did so.
Enter Severtus. He would have been roasted by just about any major group at the time -- he denied the Trinity by vehement terms, as well as paedobaptism. Rome, Wittenburg, and Geneva would have all executed him as a heretic at that time.
RW is right, Calvin had little official power; but it is not true that he had no power. What he said went -- the Geneva town council generally rubber-stamped Calvin's proposals. Had he stepped in and said "this is wrong," Servetus would probably have lived. But no one living in the 1500's would think to do that for someone who denied (infant) baptism and the Trinity. Severtus was undeniably a heretic -- and what do you do with heretics? You burn 'em! (Cue Monty Python mob scene.)
So we must figure it this way: Yes, Calvin's inaction in the affair of Severtus was wrong, and it led to a man's death as a heretic. But anyone else living in that time period would have done the same. No one had clean hands in that era, and thus we cannot hold any single person to a 21st-century standard for religious tolerence-- the concept of denominational Christianty would not arise for another 150 years, after the Peace of Westphalia.
FTD: Cornilus did in Acts.10!
Careful there, man. Building a doctrine out of Acts is dangerous, given that Acts portrays the transition from the Old Testament dispensation to the New.
Besides, this would indicate he was regenerate, after the pattern of the Old Testament saints:
"[Cornelius was] a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually." -- Acts 10:2 [NASB]
Maybe Romans 3:11 is hybolic to make a point that both Jews and Gentiles are both equally in sin.
Yes, to some extent: it shows that all men are completely evil. This is what Total Depravity means -- that man is as bad off as he can be.
After all, not all men are as wicked as the description of those who follow in vs 13-18.
Really now? I know I was. This described me completely before salvation, and alas, it still describes my old nature. It describes every single person on this board.
I know that verse is one of the Calvinist key proof texts, but the fact is men do seek God even if blindly, needing God's light (Acts.17:27,30)
Actually Acts 17:27 says, "if perhaps they might grope for him," as if it anticipates that men do not. In other words, God is there working in our lives, and not hiding himself, so that if we sought after him, we'd find him. But, because we are utterly and completely sinful, we do not, so we are without excuse. We cannot claim, "well, if he showed Himself to be God, I would believe Him." Well, He has, and many of us still do not believe Him.
No one seeks God, no not one.
When plucked out of context, the Bible's specific words can become Universal Humanism, i.e. when ftD quoted Romans 6:23 and "God's free gift of salvation."
Salvation is free to those whom God has chosen to give it; man can do nothing to earn the gift.
But salvation is not free to those who will burn in hell. Obviously it is not even offered.
Otherwise, the "free gift of salvation" is ineffectual for some, too meager a gift to save all those to whom it is given.
And we know God is not ineffectual. His intentions are one with His actions.
I am the door.
Must be where Jim Morrison got the line.
I enjoyed your post #337, I do not necessarily agree all of it, but it has bearing on a subject that I have speculated on, and it caught my intrest.
I asked the question, could God forget something? Scripture says "and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." In order for something to be true, it must always be true. Exceptions are problematic, here is one.
There is a select group of people, whose sins and iniquities have become part of their permanent record, that is to say, they are recorded on the pages of scripture. This will serve as a reminder to God and to us forever.
This is an interesting point that I hadn't considered before. So my reply to it will be unusually tentative. I think the book may be a record of the formally enrolled members of the covenant community. For the Jews, that is everyone who is circumcized; for Christians, all who are baptized. If that's so, then it makes perfect sense for some to be blotted out, as they prove, in the end, not to have believed, despite being born to believing parents and thus, nominally, part of the covenant community.
What do others think of this possibility? Any biblical evidence for or against it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.