User Tag List

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 143

Thread: Other than glorification, what is the need for the Holy Spirit in the open view?

  1. #91
    Journeyman TIPlatypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 23 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    5025
    @OP

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    I have not seen much work regarding the doctrine of the Spirit in open-view circles. In fact, I don't recall seeing any real treatment whatsoever.
    That's right, we have no doctrines.

    Is the Spirit needed for illumination and sanctification if our wills cannot be changed by the work of the Spirit? Sanctification is the process of our hearts and minds being conformed into that of Christ's. Fallen man's will is enslaved to sin. Paul says Christians minds are set on the Spirit because the Spirit of Christ dwells in us; those who set their mind on the flesh don't have the Spirit; therefore, they cannot submit to Gods law (Romans 8:7-9). The Spirit has to change our hearts, which are willed toward sin and hostile to God's law, in order to submit to the Lordship of Christ.
    I do not believe that we cannot choose to accept God's gift of salvation without the Holy Spirit. Paul is not talking about accepting the Holy Spirit here. You cannot walk in the way of God without it. But you don't need the Holy Spirit to receive the Holy Spirit.

    "God please change the heart of . . . so that he can see your glorious Son; so that he sees his sin nature, which only desires to please his flesh, for he cannot submit to your way. Extend your grace to him Lord. Lord if it be your will, may you grant repentance to him (2 Tim. 2:25)."
    Translation?

    This prayer asks that God may move peoples hearts, so that they will want to follow God, by accepting into the Holy Spirit. Our job is to give them the opportunity. They are no longer lost in sin, because they know about Jesus now. All that remains is for God to change their hearts and for them to accept the Holy Spirit.

    How do you pray as an open theist? I feel like as an open theist my prayers would be futile. I know that man only chooses evil continually (Gen. 6:5)
    Yeah, but God wiped all those people off the face of the Earth. You cannot say that what scripture says all people were like then is what scripture says all people are like now.

    therefore, as Jesus says after the rich young ruler turns away from the gift of eternal life, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God" (Mark 10:27). So, as an open theist, it seems like it would be absurd for me to think it was even possible for any man to be saved apart from the intervention of the Spirit.
    I agree with that. Someone does need the Spirit to be saved.


    As a Calvinist, I know that because of God, there will be some saved. I would rather have my salvation in God's hands than in my own hands. Wouldn't you?
    As Platypusist, I believe that salvation is in both our hands. God has done his bit. Jesus died on the cross for us. It is up to us to accept this gift. Of course salvation is in God's hands. He could have chosen not to send his son done, and then we would definitely all be doomed.

    If God cannot impress his will upon a free human being, removing the scales from his eyes, like Paul, and choose salvation in Christ, then who can be saved?
    God can impress his will on a human being. We can still reject him or accept him despite this. But certainly it will influence our decision a great deal for the better.

    So really, other than the redemption of our bodies, do we really need the Holy Spirit in our lives, according to the open view?
    We need the Holy Spirit to do good works. We need the Holy Spirit to remind us not to strike back when someone hits us, to remind us to love our neighbour, even if we find that difficult, and so on. That is the role that the Holy Spirit has in our lives.

    Please only exact quotes. Thanks

    Look forward to hearing your reply.

  2. #92
    Journeyman TIPlatypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 23 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    5025
    About Satan and God inciting David. If you look to see the numbers afterwards. They are different. In 2 Samuel, there are 800,000 men who can take the sword in Israel, and 500,000 in Judah. In 1 Chronicles, there are 1.1 million in Israel and 470,000 in Judah. I don't think this was the same census.

  3. #93
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    About Satan and God inciting David. If you look to see the numbers afterwards. They are different. In 2 Samuel, there are 800,000 men who can take the sword in Israel, and 500,000 in Judah. In 1 Chronicles, there are 1.1 million in Israel and 470,000 in Judah. I don't think this was the same census.
    The differences of these numbers from those in 2 Sam 24:9 are problematic. It may be that the number of men from Judah is included in the total for "all of Israel" (that is, including Judah with 470,000 not "and in Judah"). The Book of Chronicles may exclude some elements, such as Levi and Benjamin, from its account (see 21:6; Joab did not carry through completely the census David had ordered). Or the numbers may be approximations. Beyond this, one or both texts may suffer from errors of copying.

    We see that in the genealogies and other instances of parallel books like in the synoptic. I believe there is complete agreement in orthodox circles that these two events are in fact the same.

    Usually it is the skeptics who use instances like this to support an argument against inerrancy. And I am not implying that you are
    óRomans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  4. #94
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,969
    Thanks
    2,823
    Thanked 4,868 Times in 2,926 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Nope. Again. It is your hermeneutic that is faulty. When God tested Abraham (Heb 11, I believe) same Greek word as James 1:13. This absolutely refutes your point. Absolutely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    I don't ask them to trust me. I consider that being manipulative.
    Er, but you assert it "Absolutely" and more than once. You didn't do as well at the 1on1 that you think you did. I suppose it is like the Enyart Lamerson debate, where OV thought they 'won.' Not a good showing, really.

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    You obviously didn't learn much from the 1-1 I had with Lon, which you say you read. I said

    See above. James 1:13 and Hebrews 11 absolutely refute your hermeneutic as regards David's taking of the census.
    You are 'absolutely' an assertion king. I believe the one-on-one was not in your favor, honestly. I don't believe it went well for you at all there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Again, I don't see how anyone can trust your interpretation of texts 3000 years old and in another language if you can't get this kind of thing right.
    Well, you 'absolutely' look for lynch-pins that you can hang a supposed victory on in your debate style. They do not at all prove your point, you are simply willing to be deluded by it. It doesn't matter if Brian can read or not, all of Christendom reads these scriptures against your Open View assertions. Shoot even Open Theists oppose a lot of your specific theology and disagree with you, and that is 'with' them embracing a plain read.

    The real issue is exactly as I described in our 1-on-1, that you take the more obscure narrative passages and try to build doctrine off of narrative rather than what clearly is pedantic and plain to your face. In effect, not only did I show that narrative is a bad place to build "all" doctrine, but also that your own stance on plain meaning isn't followed because you go to obscure and tricky passages to try to build Open Theist doctrine and I gave proof of scriptures that are destroyed by a simpleton reading rather than a plain reading. You cannot say God 'relents' when only 6 verses prior to it, God says He doesn't. Why? Simply because it is literally made 'unclear' that God could even remotely 'change His mind' by the very passage used to try and teach that! It is horrible bible-reading!
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  5. #95
    SHAZAM! Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,794
    Thanks
    1,313
    Thanked 13,509 Times in 10,306 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147889
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    Musterion and lighthouse, I have addressed your questions with Scripture, but you just don't like the answers. You guys have not even interacted with the texts I used, so as to refute my understanding and use of them. That tells me you can't argue against it, nor can you mount a counter view that is coherent with Scripture.
    In the post to which I replied asking for Scripture you provided none. You have continued to provide none in response to my request.

    And what about Gen.3:15? Anyone?
    What about it?

    And John 6:64?
    You already have a thread on that and I have posted in it.


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    LoneStar (April 23rd, 2016)

  7. #96
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,969
    Thanks
    2,823
    Thanked 4,868 Times in 2,926 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    In the post to which I replied asking for Scripture you provided none. You have continued to provide none in response to my request.


    What about it?


    You already have a thread on that and I have posted in it.
    I think I misread this as well. I don't know why this particular often doesn't convey on TOL, but I think he (and I) read "didn't provide any scripture in thread" rather than scripture to answer a specific question.

    Can you remember which post # it was LH? Thanks.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  8. #97
    SHAZAM! Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,794
    Thanks
    1,313
    Thanked 13,509 Times in 10,306 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147889
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I think I misread this as well. I don't know why this particular often doesn't convey on TOL, but I think he (and I) read "didn't provide any scripture in thread" rather than scripture to answer a specific question.

    Can you remember which post # it was LH? Thanks.
    Not off the top of my head. I think it was my first post in this thread, though.


  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    LoneStar (April 23rd, 2016)

  10. #98
    SHAZAM! Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,794
    Thanks
    1,313
    Thanked 13,509 Times in 10,306 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147889
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    You can't breathe unless you have lungs to breathe with;so it goes with a profession of faith--you must have the regenerated heart first.
    Scripture?


  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    LoneStar (April 23rd, 2016)

  12. #99
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post


    That's right, we have no doctrines.
    Doctrine: ďa belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other groupĒ (Websters)

    So you donít have any beliefs?


    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    I do not believe that we cannot choose to accept God's gift of salvation without the Holy Spirit. Paul is not talking about accepting the Holy Spirit here. You cannot walk in the way of God without it. But you don't need the Holy Spirit to receive the Holy Spirit.
    Bible verse? I defer you to a post I made here on this subject
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...&postcount=126


    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    Translation?
    I did not quote a Bible verse, just referenced one.

    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    This prayer asks that God may move peoples hearts, so that they will want to follow God, by accepting into the Holy Spirit. Our job is to give them the opportunity. They are no longer lost in sin, because they know about Jesus now. All that remains is for God to change their hearts and for them to accept the Holy Spirit.
    Again, I defer you to: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...&postcount=126


    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    Yeah, but God wiped all those people off the face of the Earth. You cannot say that what scripture says all people were like then is what scripture says all people are like now.
    Are we not all from Adam? Where in the Scripture do you get the idea that fallen man has changed since Gen. 6:5?

    Jeremiah 17:9; Titus 1:15-16; Ecclesiastes 9:3; Romans 1:28-31; Ephesians 4:17-18; Jeremiah 10:7-8,14; Matthew 7:11; 15:19; Genesis 8:21; Proverbs 10:20; Proverbs 28:26

    I, again, differ you to http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...&postcount=126


    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    I agree with that. Someone does need the Spirit to be saved.
    Amen!

    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    As Platypusist, I believe that salvation is in both our hands. God has done his bit. Jesus died on the cross for us. It is up to us to accept this gift. Of course salvation is in God's hands. He could have chosen not to send his son done, and then we would definitely all be doomed.
    With your statement, is it possible then that God could have sent his Son to die on the cross, taking all our sins, and yet no one receive him, making his death to be in vain?

    If man could truly choose to do good according to Godís law, then why send Christ? If man has the natural ability to submit to Godís law, then why hasnít any man been able to do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    God can impress his will on a human being. We can still reject him or accept him despite this. But certainly it will influence our decision a great deal for the better.
    You have to ask yourself, if man doesnít seek God, for it is not in his nature to do so (I defer to my link), something has to happen to his nature. This change in heart is what God said he would do in the new covenant (Ezekiel 36:26). You can try to persuade a lion to eat vegetables but you know he never will because by nature he is a carnivore and only needs, wants, and desires meat. Just like us who are sinners; we donít want what is holy, good, and righteous.

    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    We need the Holy Spirit to do good works. We need the Holy Spirit to remind us not to strike back when someone hits us, to remind us to love our neighbour, even if we find that difficult, and so on. That is the role that the Holy Spirit has in our lives.
    I know plenty of people who do those things without the Holy Spirit; itís the motive that is misplaced, for theirs is rooted in manís glory, not in Godís gloryóthat's the difference.
    óRomans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  13. #100
    Journeyman TIPlatypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 23 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    5025
    [QUOTE=BrianJOrr;4269565]Doctrine: ďa belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other groupĒ (Websters)

    So you donít have any beliefs?



    Bible verse?
    I said: I do not believe that we cannot choose to accept God's gift of salvation without the Holy Spirit. Paul is not talking about accepting the Holy Spirit here. You cannot walk in the way of God without it. But you don't need the Holy Spirit to receive the Holy Spirit.
    Here is the verse I am talking about.
    Romans 8:7-9

    I did not quote a Bible verse, just referenced one.
    2 Tim 2:25
    But you reference is not the same as the verse. It doesn't mean what the verse means nor does it say what the verse says.


    Are we not all from Adam? Where in the Scripture do you get the idea that fallen man has changed since Gen. 6:5?
    Where in scripture do you get the idea that man is fallen? Perhaps it is here : Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. And then man fell.

    If you can answer that, because it seems to be a pretty key idea in your reasoning, I will answer you question.

    With your statement, is it possible then that God could have sent his Son to die on the cross, taking all our sins, and yet no one receive him, making his death to be in vain?
    Yes.

    If man could truly choose to do good according to Godís law, then why send Christ? If man has the natural ability to submit to Godís law, then why hasnít any man been able to do it?
    Man does not have the natural ability to follow God's law. Man can accept the Holy Spirit. After that he has the ability to follow God's law.


    You have to ask yourself, if man doesn't seek God, for it is not in his nature to do so (I defer to my link), something has to happen to his nature.
    I disagree. That is the point I think Timothy is trying to make. Tim 2:25. If man doesn't know how good God is or if he does not see God as good, then he will not desire to change his nature. If he is taught what is good, then he might desire to change his nature. In which case, he will accept Jesus into his life, and the Holy spirit will come to transform him. With your reasoning, no one can seek God, ever.

    This change in heart is what God said he would do in the new covenant (Ezekiel 36:26). You can try to persuade a lion to eat vegetables but you know he never will because by nature he is a carnivore and only needs, wants, and desires meat. Just like us who are sinners; we donít want what is holy, good, and righteous.
    But if the lion see that eating vegetables is good for him, then he may seek to change his nature, which obviously, he can't do by himself.

    I know plenty of people who do those things without the Holy Spirit; itís the motive that is misplaced, for theirs is rooted in manís glory, not in Godís gloryóthat's the difference.
    How does this contradict what I said?

  14. #101
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    178
    [QUOTE=TIPlatypus;4272945]
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    Doctrine: ďa belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other groupĒ (Websters)

    So you donít have any beliefs?




    I said: I do not believe that we cannot choose to accept God's gift of salvation without the Holy Spirit. Paul is not talking about accepting the Holy Spirit here. You cannot walk in the way of God without it. But you don't need the Holy Spirit to receive the Holy Spirit.
    Here is the verse I am talking about.
    Romans 8:7-9


    2 Tim 2:25
    But you reference is not the same as the verse. It doesn't mean what the verse means nor does it say what the verse says.




    Where in scripture do you get the idea that man is fallen? Perhaps it is here : Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. And then man fell.

    If you can answer that, because it seems to be a pretty key idea in your reasoning, I will answer you question.



    Yes.



    Man does not have the natural ability to follow God's law. Man can accept the Holy Spirit. After that he has the ability to follow God's law.




    I disagree. That is the point I think Timothy is trying to make. Tim 2:25. If man doesn't know how good God is or if he does not see God as good, then he will not desire to change his nature. If he is taught what is good, then he might desire to change his nature. In which case, he will accept Jesus into his life, and the Holy spirit will come to transform him. With your reasoning, no one can seek God, ever.



    But if the lion see that eating vegetables is good for him, then he may seek to change his nature, which obviously, he can't do by himself.



    How does this contradict what I said?
    It seems like you did not read any of the scriptures I posted on man's fallen nature. Did you check out the link I posted as well?
    óRomans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

  15. #102
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    7,277
    Thanks
    412
    Thanked 822 Times in 713 Posts

    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    [QUOTE=BrianJOrr;4273197]
    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post



    It seems like you did not read any of the scriptures I posted on man's fallen nature. Did you check out the link I posted as well?

    Yea it doesn't

  16. #103
    Journeyman TIPlatypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 23 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    5025
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post

    It seems like you did not read any of the scriptures I posted on man's fallen nature. Did you check out the link I posted as well?
    Firstly, none of the scriptures you gave concerning the fallen nature of man actually say anything about the fallen nature of man.

    Secondly, when in your other post which you so humbly deferred to, you quote Rom 3:10 . This out of its immediate context. Paul is himself quoting scripture here to support his argument, with the following conclusion. Romans 3:19 , Romans 3:20 . I reckon this is only a conclusion used to support a bigger argument later, but that's for another time.

    Essentially you are quoting Paul quoting a piece of scripture out of the context he intended and for a viewpoint Paul never states or implies.

    I am not going to paraphrase Paul's argument. It is imo all of Ramans 3.

  17. #104
    Journeyman TIPlatypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 23 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    5025
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    The differences of these numbers from those in 2 Sam 24:9 are problematic. It may be that the number of

    ...

    Usually it is the skeptics who use instances like this to support an argument against inerrancy. And I am not implying that you are
    Fair enough.

  18. #105
    Journeyman BrianJOrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    110
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    Firstly, none of the scriptures you gave concerning the fallen nature of man actually say anything about the fallen nature of man.
    Lets look at this: When Paul says in Ephesians 2:3 that they "were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind," what does that tell us about their nature, as well as the rest of mankind? Wrath reserved for those who are rebellious sinners; their nature is what makes them children of wrath. Why is that? Because all they do is sin against God.

    And when Jeremiah makes the analogy with the Ethiopian and the leopard and those who do evil, what point is he trying to make? The Ethiopian and the leopard by nature are what they are and cannot change, just like those who are evil (which is all of mankind), are by their nature and cannot change. It is mans nature to do evil.

    Even Christ made this general statement in the sermon on the mount, Matthew 7:11: "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" Even those who call God "Father" are considered evil, though they know how to give good gifts to their children. There are plenty more Scriptures demonstrating then fibrous sinfulness of mankind.


    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    Secondly, when in your other post which you so humbly deferred to, you quote Rom 3:10 . This out of its immediate context. Paul is himself quoting scripture here to support his argument, with the following conclusion. Romans 3:19 , Romans 3:20 . I reckon this is only a conclusion used to support a bigger argument later, but that's for another time.
    Romans 3:11-18 is a series of verses Paul interpolates from the OT to form the conclusion from 3:5-10, not 3:19. Note specifically 3:9. He writes, "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, as it is written . . . And then he goes on to classify Jews and Greeks under the same indictment, showing us that law or no law, all are accountable to God, stressing the universal sinfulness of mankind. He then goes back to the Law (3:20), reaffirming the fact that the Jews, and anyone else for that matter, cannot be saved by the Law. Why is that? Because through the law comes knowledge of sin. And then the rest of Romans 3 takes us to the gospeló the righteousness of God through faith in Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    Essentially you are quoting Paul quoting a piece of scripture out of the context he intended and for a viewpoint Paul never states or implies.
    I hope what I put just cleared that up.
    óRomans 11:36


    http://therantingreformer.com
    https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us