I'm proving my case, actually, from the passages I've raised. You "don't see" it. That is perfectly fine by me. Your arguments against what is obviously occurring in Ro 14, and, in particular, v23, are ridiculous.
No Condemnation For Those In Christ (Romans 8:1)
- Thread starter GracePeace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
No, "dissent" hasn't been weeded out, they have multitudes of books from authors who agree with you on OSAS/POTS, but those same OSAS/POTS teachers haven't understood the implications of interpreting Romans 14:23 correctly (as they have).
Last edited:
@CadyandZoe How could you allow yourself to be incurious about all the Scriptural "extra parts" left laying around after building your theology?
Why does the concept of "remaining in Christ" (Jn 15; 1 Jn 3:23,24), always by keeping His Word and commands, even exist in Scripture if being "in Christ" were a static reality?
Why had the Galatians, being duped into unbelief, been said to have been deserting God, cut off from Christ? Why were they being held to a standard, identical to the one laid out in 1 Jn 3:23,24, for remaining?
You may argue that you're doing your part to remain by believing, but don't you think the concepts taught in Scripture should be taken seriously?
Why does the concept of "remaining in Christ" (Jn 15; 1 Jn 3:23,24), always by keeping His Word and commands, even exist in Scripture if being "in Christ" were a static reality?
Why had the Galatians, being duped into unbelief, been said to have been deserting God, cut off from Christ? Why were they being held to a standard, identical to the one laid out in 1 Jn 3:23,24, for remaining?
You may argue that you're doing your part to remain by believing, but don't you think the concepts taught in Scripture should be taken seriously?
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
On the contrary, the original topic is an argument against my interpretation of Romans 8:1ff, where Paul argues for a non-contingent salvation. You want to argue that since Romans 14:23 talks about a true believer who is condemned, my interpretation of Romans 8:1 must be incorrect.
I maintain that your objection isn't valid because Romans 8, is concerned with God's condemnation, whereas Romans 14 is concerned with man's condemnation.
I am attempting to make sense of Paul's statements in context. First, he is writing to the church in Rome, so we can safely conclude that he deals with religious and theological matters in this chapter. Second, he mentions two issues that are known to be associated with the Jewish religion. Finally, Paul states his own opinion on the matter, which is an appeal to reason rather than dogma.
He argues that vegetarians are weak in faith and that the one who eats meat is correct because "all foods are clean." He never suggests that vegetarians might have a good reason to abstain. Rather, he says that vegetarians' beliefs are weak, meaning that the reasons they hold for vegetarianism won't stand up to reason.
What can all this mean except that the vegetarian obeys a religious dogma while the meat eater obeys reason?
How does one argue for or against a religious tenet? One doesn't usually find arguments for or against religious tenets because they aren't based on rational arguments in the first place. Rather, one simply has to ask, "Does our religion teach 'X'?" where 'X' stands for any propositional statement concerning the dogma in view. Why bother to formulate an argument for a yes, or no question? Either your religion teaches Saturday observance or it doesn't.
For instance, those who rest on the Seventh Day of the Week do so under commandment from God. They did not sit down and wonder if it might be a good idea to hear arguments from all sides to make up one's mind.
Not only this, but the topic of discussion is Paul's exhortation to "receive the one who is weak in faith." How does someone with a rational faith interact with someone who has a religious faith? That's the question.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
You were doing so well before; why this appeal to authority now? :)
When I encounter an ambiguous word, I attempt to understand its context. So, I asked you a series of questions about doubt. I wasn't being critical of you or your position. My questions assume that I might be wrong and you might be right. If you have good reasons why Paul meant to say "doubt" then I want to hear them because I want to learn also. :)
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
No. That's not it. Let me explain. Like any academic discipline, Christian theology is conveyed to the public through the writings of experts in the field who have been awarded advanced degrees in Biblical studies, Greek and Hebrew, the history of Israel, and Church History. A man can make a name for himself if his work is published in official publications such as Bible commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons, or Bible helps.
While many Christian scholars with advanced degrees in the Bible, languages, and other fields are indeed humble servants of the Lord, they are also deserving of our respect. The glorification of these experts is a potential pitfall, but it's important to remember that they are just as human as the rest of us, albeit with a wealth of knowledge and experience.
Academic freedom is a cornerstone of the learning process in Christian theology. Students are encouraged to develop their own thoughts and ideas, as long as they remain within the bounds of respect for established scholarship. This means that while students are free to think independently, they are also expected to cite the expert opinions of scholars who have already established credibility.
It's important to be cautious when assessing the prevalence of a certain doctrine or idea among scholars. We shouldn't simply count how many scholars hold a particular view, as many scholars' opinions are based on the ideas of the first scholar. Instead, we should consider whether 100 experts are independently expressing the same opinion or if they are simply repeating the opinion of one person.
Since I am not being published but simply sharing ideas among fellow believers, I assume that each one of us is not only encouraged to think for ourselves but also to reserve the right to change our minds when better evidence comes along.
Yes? :)
Did Paul mean "doubt" in Romans 14:23? I don't think so, but I am willing to be convinced. What is being doubted? That's my first question to answer.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Does Paul say, "If they walk by the spirit?" Does he leave it ambiguous or contingent?1. He had described the plight of the Jew under Law (mastered by Sin Ro 6:14), and he says Christ rescues us from that slavery, and being rescued from slavery to Sin, we THEREFORE are not condemned, because we can fulfill the Law, and not be condemned for breaking the Law, but he goes on to warn that IF they walk after the Spirit they will live, and IF they walk after the flesh they will die.
I don't see that Paul addresses whether being "in Christ" is static in v1, and he immediately speaks in a way that would render that understanding incoherent.
2. It is wrong to overemphasize self, as you say, but that doesn't conclude the matter and prove your point.
Edit:
No Condemnation For Those In Christ (Romans 8:1)
@CadyandZoe Not that finding respected people who agree with us conclusively proves anything (I stand on my own, and my arguments don't need help), but I'm curious: are there any NT scholars, any commentaries, any teachers, etc, (Monergist or Synergist), that actually disagree with my view and...www.christianityboard.com
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Well, I understand the word ridiculous, but don't have a clue why you think my ideas should be the subject of ridicule.
You have yet to explain why you believe Paul is talking about the same source of ridicule in each passage and what is actually being doubted in Romans 14:3.
I maintain that Romans 1 speaks about God's condemnation of man, while Romans 14 speaks about man's condemnation of man. Why is this incorrect?
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Okay, but did I cite any of them? :)
But doesn't your assessment depend on a precommitment to a particular interpretation? :)
In other words, in order for me to know whether a teacher has the correct interpretation of a passage, I have only two courses of action: 1) compare the first teacher with a second teacher, or 2) compare the first teacher with my own interpretation.
And my question for all who read this post is this. Why doubt yourself?
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
If you remember, I maintain that Paul coined the phrase "in Christ" to represent the sanctified individual who will never fall away and is guaranteed to be saved. I wouldn't say the same thing about how Jesus uses the phrase.
As I say, to see what I mean we would need to visit all of his epistles to see how he uses the phrase.
Paul's epistle to the Galatians also contains the idea of non-contingence. Notice his definition of the term "son", which in his view is the man or woman who will inherit eternal life.
Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
This is very similar to his remarks in Romans 8, where he says, "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 issue in each passage is the same. God has chosen individuals to save, and he sanctifies them with his Spirit; these particular individuals stand to inherit eternal life without exception.
In Galatians 4:6 above, he defines a "son" (man or woman) as one in whom God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into their hearts. That is true by definition.
In Romans 8, he gives a similar definition: "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." This is also true by definition. Those who have the Spirit of Christ in them will be raised from the dead by that same Spirit -- without exception.
Of course, I do. However, I don't interpret them from a philosophical standpoint that suggests salvation is conditional until death due to the "if" statements in scripture. According to Paul, salvation is assured for all those in whom God has poured out the Spirit of Christ into their hearts.
No, Paul doesn't argue for a "non-contingent salvation"--Romans 8:1 never touches upon whether "in Christ" is "contingent" upon anything, and immediately speaks in a way that undermines that assumption (vv12,13).
Well, yes, Romans 14:23, but, also, many other verses--Romans 8:12,13 for example.
No, "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" is God's rule, thus breaking that rule is sin, and the person is condemned by the Giver of the rule for not keeping His rule.
How is it relevant when breaking God's rule is "sin" whereby the sinner is "condemned"? It's irrelevant what the convictions people who come to Christ have were based on (Scripture, primitive science, tradition, etc), only that the people stick with their convictions.
No, the vegetarian is not necessarily Jewish. That could easily have described a Gentile believer. Vegetarianism was not unheard of in ancient Rome.
He never says their arguments are weak, he says they themselves, the biological people, are "weak". They themselves could be "destroyed". Same in 1 Co 8.
AGAIN, if the point of the passage was "they're weak, because their arguments are weak, and we ought to have strong arguments," he wouldn't have said "make sure these weak brothers do not overstep their uninformed consciences", he would've said "whip these guys into shape--make them strong by making sure their faith conforms with the truth".
I have already supplied you with this reply many times, and I don't recall you giving a reasonable answer against it--again, this would be why I would not be excited about the idea of going through the rest of Paul's writings (you're dishonest about, cannot accept, basic facts--even facts that even everyone who shares your view have already accepted, because they didn't understand that accepting that view actually undermined their view, but you do not accept the transparent truth, because I have framed it in a way as undermines your view, so you're approaching the accepted, clearly true, view, in the way you are approaching it only because you're trying to defend your indefensible view).
1. Tangent: Well, actually, nowadays, we know that the vegetarian obeys "reason". Flooding your body with amino acids shuts SIRT2 anti-aging pathway down, accelerating aging and age-related disease. This actually handily explains why the longevity of man cratered as soon as God gave man meat to eat.
2. Paul never addresses the source of a conviction someone has before the Lord, he only has the rule that people do not overstep their convictions before the Lord.
1. It's not relevant. Paul does not say "here's how you change your brother's mind, so that he adheres to the true truth". You're distracting from the point. Paul only says "make sure your brother stays within the boundaries of his convictions, does not overstep them, sinning, and bringing condemnation on himself".
2. The religion teaches "each man should be fully convinced in his own mind", debunking your distraction from the matter, claiming Paul's concern was that people believe the actual truth.
They came to the religion with that background, and, for them, if they don't do it, they are sinning--that is, until God issues another persuasion in the future, just as occurred with Peter, who had also been "under commandment from God". HOWEVER, to say "under commandment from God" is a basis for understanding the "ultimate truth" whereby one should be walking could become the Judaizers' error, because the Galatians were called "slaves" when they followed that reasoning. Rather, "each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind". People come from different backgrounds, and they know the Lord, and they know their own responsibilities before the Lord.
I've already answered this many, many, many times: Paul deals with several issues, which is a transparent fact, not just one.
Last edited:
I'm glad, for your sake, that you recognize I was doing well, but it's sad to see that you are in such a state as to have to suppress the truth that I am still doing stellar.
Not appealing to authority, just discussing the Greek--unless you are complaining that I have to go to an authority on Greek in order to discuss the Greek?
That was exactly what I was discussing. I guess you chose not to read?
You must not have read before replying.
Proverbs 18
13He who answers a matter before he hears it—
this is folly and disgrace to him.
Irrelevant: as stated, and as you know, there're multitudes of books by OSASers, so quit being ridiculous. The issue is merely they have spoken without understanding the ramifications of the obvious interpretation--but the reason you are objecting is because I have understood the ramifications of the text, and presented them in that fashion, so that now an OSASer has to deny what is obvious.
It's not more complicated than that.
Already addressed this in one of the replies that you apparently answered without having read.
Because of how they are poor and obvious attempts to suppress the reality of what is being discussed.
"Each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind"--if the person goes and does something he is not convinced is correct, that is doing something without faith (ie, with uncertainty, with wavering) thus it is sin.
Again, you have this habit of oversimplifying issues--in Romans 14, the only thing being discussed is "how to receive a weak brother", and there's no room for Paul to go into other discussions or details which can be subjects of discussion on their own.
Romans 1:17 states that God's righteousness is being revealed from faith to faith. Whose faith is revealing God's righteousness? God's faith? God didn't start to have faith just now, but "we were kept under the Law until the faith would come" (Gal 3). Who is told they need God's righteousness (Ro 3)? Men. Men need Jesus Who is "God Is Our Righteousness". Then they will not boast of their own righteousness, but God and God's righteousness (Jer 9; Gal 6). How does man live in God's righteousness as opposed to his own? Man's own righteousness is his own works, which "do not proceed from faith" (Ro 14; Gal), but God's righteousness is from a living relationship with God, from God, as unto God, for God's glory. Knowing God is the "knowledge" man is to have, because "God Is Our Righteousness", not the knowledge of good and evil.
But you want to whittle Romans 1 down to an oversimplified statement, "Man's condemnation". Forget the fact that Paul says he's an apostle, forget that he greets the Gentiles, forget that he's setting up the Jewish Christians in order to say "YOU ARE THE MAN", as Nathan did with David, in Romans 2. Forget EVERYTHING except a little blurb "Man's condemnation". You are unbelievable in your attempts to suppress the truth.
Last edited:
Not relevant.
I have a "precommittment" to accepting what ever the Bible states.
This isn't about you citing authorities, this is about your baseless, ridiculous, belief that you're only being proven wrong by everyone else because there's a conspiracy to suppress the correct interpretations--and, here, "correct", in your mind, would be the OSAS position, which is given much trouble by Romans 14:23, but the teachers who hold your position on OSAS also hold my position on Romans 14:23, because they haven't understood why interpreting it the correct way would pose a threat to their position.
You would rather believe there's a nonsensical conspiracy by everyone, including all other OSAS teachers, to suppress the "correct" (your) understanding, rather than just humbly accept that you're wrong.
Another irrelevant point meant to divert.
The fact is that people choose to do/not do, things that they know they're going to regret later.
Why did Adam, who "was not deceived", eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and commit the first trespass--sin with knowledge? He knew it was wrong, and did it anyway. He went against his conviction. In Romans 14, the "knowledge" people have that they're not to overstep is the conviction they have before the Lord.
Last edited:
Based on how uninformed and dishonest you are just in Romans, I wouldn't think I'd want to exert my effort wrangling with you through all of Paul's epistles, where you'd have to be corrected on so many more issues, and wouldn't care to accept the correction--except if I thought I wanted the exercise, and/or thought it might help readers.
They were not remaining in Christ, but were cut off, because they were not fully in the faith. They had been in the faith, had "run well" (faith is compared to a race), but had been "hindered" (5:7). Is someone who believes a doctrine of demons on their way to inheriting God's Kingdom?
1. Paul was arguing they don't need to become Jewish--they're already sons by being baptized into Christ, clothed with Christ, they don't need the knowledge of good and evil in the Law, as they had been deceived into pursuing, so that they were "cut off from Christ" and were "deserting God".
2. Yeah, which proves that people don't always abide in Christ.
To abide, you must keep his Words and Works (Jn 15; 1 Jn 3:23,24).
The Galatians had left the faith (Gal 1:6, 5:4,7).
Therefore, they were "deserting [God]" and were "cut off from Christ".
Yes, Galatians 3:1 admits they had received the Spirit.
And yet they were deceived and were leaving Christ's Words.
No, actually, Paul was wanting to form Christ in the Galatians again (Gal 4:19) by bringing them back to faith through his spirit-inspired argumentation. While there is a little ambiguity about their exact state, what can be known was that they needed correction, because they had believed in a doctrine of demons, and had thereby deserted God and had been severed from Christ. Those are words that denote the idea of "not abiding". Why? Because you abide in Christ, the Word, in part, by receiving His Word, then, since you're in the Word/Son, you're granted the Holy Spirit/eternal life found only "in His Son" (1 Jn 3:23,24; 1 Jn 5:11).
Well, the concept of "remain in Christ", by keeping His Words (faith) and Commands (walk in faith/conviction), exists in Scripture--and breaking that rule apparently sees people not remaining in Christ.
Are these just "extra parts"?
It's good when OSASers have a commitment to obeying Christ built in to their theology (ie, "those who are saved automatically obey Christ, and they do so to the end--if not, they were never saved at all"), thus fulfilling the requirement for remaining in Christ, but, again, your remaining by so doing is not a debunking of the fact that Scripture teaches obedience is a requirement for remaining.
Last edited:
For anyone who has been confused by the "not saved by works" argument (as I had been):
When we walk in faith, that is Christ saving us apart from works of the Law, saving us (1 Co 15:2) with His righteousness, bc when we walk in grace through faith, that is the "gift of righteousness" (that turns eternal life into a gift Ro 6) at work ("I was abundant in labors above them all, yet not I, but the grace with me"); when we do not walk in faith, that is our works, not resting in God's righteousness, so, as Romans 2 and James 2 teach, on the Day of Judgement, justification is by not only having faith, but also by walking in faith.
This explains Romans 14:23--the guy who doesn't walk in faith isn't working God's works, so he's "condemned", not "justified".
God will judge our deeds--and IS judging our deeds (eg, Rev 2, 3) all the way up to that Day, thus the "adjudication" of the sinner's "condemnation" (Ro 14:23), his thoughts accusing him (Ro 2).
Again, when we walk in faith, that is "God's righteousness apart from the works of the Law" that God is working ("not I but the grace with me"), not us, whereby God alone gets the glory without removing man from the equation (Judges 7:2+)
When we walk in faith, that is Christ saving us apart from works of the Law, saving us (1 Co 15:2) with His righteousness, bc when we walk in grace through faith, that is the "gift of righteousness" (that turns eternal life into a gift Ro 6) at work ("I was abundant in labors above them all, yet not I, but the grace with me"); when we do not walk in faith, that is our works, not resting in God's righteousness, so, as Romans 2 and James 2 teach, on the Day of Judgement, justification is by not only having faith, but also by walking in faith.
This explains Romans 14:23--the guy who doesn't walk in faith isn't working God's works, so he's "condemned", not "justified".
God will judge our deeds--and IS judging our deeds (eg, Rev 2, 3) all the way up to that Day, thus the "adjudication" of the sinner's "condemnation" (Ro 14:23), his thoughts accusing him (Ro 2).
Again, when we walk in faith, that is "God's righteousness apart from the works of the Law" that God is working ("not I but the grace with me"), not us, whereby God alone gets the glory without removing man from the equation (Judges 7:2+)
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Did you just insult me? You can't make a good argument so you resort to attacking my character? Is this a Christian discussion board?
Did you answer my earlier questions?
In Romans 14:23, what in particular is being doubted?
Your suppression of the obvious truth--which everyone, even those on your side (OSAS), agree on, yet you claim there is a "conspiracy", including by your own OSAS people, to suppress your view--is insulting.
"Can't make a good argument"? LOL
Your objections have done nothing but honed my arguments.
I've answered every one of your questions.
"Let each man be fully convinced [about what he thinks is correct to do as unto the Lord] in his own mind"--by not remaining in that conviction, but walking contrary to it, he is not acting in faith, but is wavering (as Romans 4:20 says "no doubt made him waver"--same word for "wavering" used in both, as explained).
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry you felt insulted. I thought we were having a good discussion. I asked you the question about doubt, not as a "gotcha question" but a genuine exegetical question, the kind of question our men's group meeting likes to ask each other.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of eating meat my wife has decided to cook up a stake for Father's day. :) Yum.
Happy Father's Day GracePeace!
- Status