were the fish already cooked when you reeled them in?
TK
Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Steve,
I will try and space things out and generally try a more discipline way of expressing my self.
Steve you wrote,
"Of course, we may be meaning different things by exegesis. Calvinists often think it primarily has to do with parsing Greek words and phrases. In that sense, much of my work is not exegesis. I use the word exegesis to mean the employment of every relevant hermeneutic to draw the author's intended meaning out of a passage. More often than not, Greek word parsing is not necessary for that purpose, so long as one is working with an adequate English translation and can follow an author's train of thought."
You are correct, that I am more inclined to see exegesis as the particulars of the Greek words and phrases as they meant to the audience present at the reading. May be an example would be 1 Corinthians 2:6, " And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless,"(Young's literal translation). Where instead of "mature" we have "perfect", which with my mindset I would interpret as those who are saved by the revelation of the mystery of Christ in them. We in a sense are seen as "perfect", the moment we receive Jesus, because of His "perfect" life in our place. If this is the meaning that is implied by this passage, what now does one make of verse 14?
To be honest with you, over the last several years I have been looking more into the way you approach Scripture when culture, hyperbole of speech and etc all play a part in understanding why a passage states what it does. We in the west are very black and white, and do not fully understand a Middle East way of language.
I believe that all of us are as the Jews, with a rebellious heart until the heart has been regenerated. I would be interested of your interpretation of Ephesians 2:1-10 and Old Testament passages like Ezekiel 36:22-34, which appears to me, to suggest God must be involved in our accepting Spiritual matters.
You mentioned 2 Corinthians 3:16, "But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." A person who believes in the Sovereignty of God in respect to ones salvation, would say this verse as well as verses like you brought up in Psalms that speak to man's ability to seek and choose, are due to the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit first. The Methodist calls this concept Prevenient Grace, of course they would say that one could still say no after being given revelation of Christ.
Grace, Bubba
I will try and space things out and generally try a more discipline way of expressing my self.
Steve you wrote,
"Of course, we may be meaning different things by exegesis. Calvinists often think it primarily has to do with parsing Greek words and phrases. In that sense, much of my work is not exegesis. I use the word exegesis to mean the employment of every relevant hermeneutic to draw the author's intended meaning out of a passage. More often than not, Greek word parsing is not necessary for that purpose, so long as one is working with an adequate English translation and can follow an author's train of thought."
You are correct, that I am more inclined to see exegesis as the particulars of the Greek words and phrases as they meant to the audience present at the reading. May be an example would be 1 Corinthians 2:6, " And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless,"(Young's literal translation). Where instead of "mature" we have "perfect", which with my mindset I would interpret as those who are saved by the revelation of the mystery of Christ in them. We in a sense are seen as "perfect", the moment we receive Jesus, because of His "perfect" life in our place. If this is the meaning that is implied by this passage, what now does one make of verse 14?
To be honest with you, over the last several years I have been looking more into the way you approach Scripture when culture, hyperbole of speech and etc all play a part in understanding why a passage states what it does. We in the west are very black and white, and do not fully understand a Middle East way of language.
I believe that all of us are as the Jews, with a rebellious heart until the heart has been regenerated. I would be interested of your interpretation of Ephesians 2:1-10 and Old Testament passages like Ezekiel 36:22-34, which appears to me, to suggest God must be involved in our accepting Spiritual matters.
You mentioned 2 Corinthians 3:16, "But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." A person who believes in the Sovereignty of God in respect to ones salvation, would say this verse as well as verses like you brought up in Psalms that speak to man's ability to seek and choose, are due to the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit first. The Methodist calls this concept Prevenient Grace, of course they would say that one could still say no after being given revelation of Christ.
Grace, Bubba
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Hi Homer,
Small world, one of my sons is a school teacher in Sanger. People who live in this area brag about spring and fall, where as summer and winter (heat and fog) can be less then desirable.
If you read some of the posts I have written lately, you can readily ascertain that I believe that God must change our hearts before we will say yes to Jesus in regards to this realm, and I believe Paidion and I may have similar views in respect to post-mortem, in that after a period of correction and purification of that which is not of God must occur. Then the post-mortem individual will desire Christ. Why doesn't God just regenerate all people in this life is a good question, I think the reason He does regenerate people in every age is due to a constant witness being present on earth as a sort of a standard of what should be. I think we all, regenerate and unregenerate must go through the difficulties of life in any age to fully appreciate mercy and grace. I know that I have become a better person going through trials and corrections, then it would have been if I had not experience any hardships at all.
Grace, Bubba
Small world, one of my sons is a school teacher in Sanger. People who live in this area brag about spring and fall, where as summer and winter (heat and fog) can be less then desirable.
If you read some of the posts I have written lately, you can readily ascertain that I believe that God must change our hearts before we will say yes to Jesus in regards to this realm, and I believe Paidion and I may have similar views in respect to post-mortem, in that after a period of correction and purification of that which is not of God must occur. Then the post-mortem individual will desire Christ. Why doesn't God just regenerate all people in this life is a good question, I think the reason He does regenerate people in every age is due to a constant witness being present on earth as a sort of a standard of what should be. I think we all, regenerate and unregenerate must go through the difficulties of life in any age to fully appreciate mercy and grace. I know that I have become a better person going through trials and corrections, then it would have been if I had not experience any hardships at all.
Grace, Bubba
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Homer, you address your post to Bubba and me. Then your second paragraph begins as quoted above. So who is the Arminian to whom you refer? Is it I?Homer wrote:I find it interesting to see the universalist position advocated by a Calvinist and an Arminian. It should not be so surprising though since both are forms of determinism.
You are quite right that both are forms of determinism. However, I am not an Arminian. An Arminian believes God looks into the future and therefore knows the logically impossible --- knows what people will choose before they make that choice. I take a third position, that of the open theist. I held that position many years before I heard of the label. Indeed, I didn't know until that last couple of years that anyone other than myself subscribed to that view. Thus I am not a determinist, but an indeterminist. That is not to say that I do not believe that every event has a cause, but rather that the cause of some events are people themselves.
Even in this life, suffering can be a heavy factor in some people come to Christ, for example imprisonment, torture, painful diseases, loss of a spouse, etc. Why not in the next? Couple the suffering in Gehenna with the witness of the perfected bride, and conversion is a "natural" consequent.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Steve,steve wrote: The fact that there are some non-disciples who would "give a cup of cold water" to a disciple, and thereby secure an inalienable reward does not easily fit this scenario. Neither does reality as any of us have ever known it.
You allude here to a point which I think is not discussed much (if at all). The Bible affirms that "God is not a respecter of persons and will render to every man according to his deeds." To those who are doing good He will render blessing, and to those who do evil He will punish. As I see it, non-christians who do good works will be blessed (as you also seem to say), and christians who do evil will be punished. Do you see it this way? If so, are these blessings/punishments received in this life or the after-life?
Todd
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Hi Bubba,
You wrote:
Now, in deciding between "mature" and "perfect," in this passage, the context is extremely helpful to us. Those who are described as "teleios." are not the Corinthian Christians, but are contrasted with them. This is clearly evident in the opening words of both chapter two and chapter three (the excursus about "the teleios" falls within this broader context). Paul's argument is that the Corinthian Christians are "immature" (a word strongly suggested by his describing them as "babes"). In 2:1-2, Paul says that, when he had labored among them (for 18 months), he never got beyond the most basic Christian truths in his teaching them. In 3:1-2, he gives, as his reason for this limitation in his teaching, that they had never reached a level of maturity that would enable him to teach them anything except "milk." However, it is clear that there was something else that he referred to as "solid food," which he would like to have given them, had they been able to receive it. What would have made them more able to receive it? Simply being more mature (i.e., "not babes"), like those he contrasts with them in 2:6ff. These others, to whom he is able to teach "deep things of God" such as only "spiritual men" can receive, are described as "the teleios."
If we are seeking the best English equivalent for this Greek word (among the three options: "perfect," "mature," and "complete"—any of which, in a supportive context, might be justly chosen), certainly the context of Paul's discussion furnishes an adequate basis for the selection of one of these above the others in the present passage. Since the people described by this word are contrasted with the Corinthians, who are, in the context, described as "babes," needing to ingest only "milk," the word "mature" suggests itself to a degree that the other options do not.
True, people who don't do real exegesis, but play the game of "choose your favorite synonym to suit your fancy" can choose a different option. The question is not one of how well we can keep up the semblance of an argument for our position against all challenges, but one of trying to actually understand the author's intent. This is not so difficult, once we set aside our theological agendas and really follow the author's argument.
You wondered about my interpretation of Ephesians 2:1-10. Because of other commitments, I don't have the time right now to exegete ten verses. I have done so elsewhere and often. Suffice it to say that Paul, in this passage, emphasizes the grace of God in bringing the readers out of death and into life in Christ (vv.1, 5). He reminds the readers of their past paganism (vv.2-3), emphasizing how unwarranted by any merit of their own this gracious act of God was (vv.4-5). He drives this point home by waxing eloquent on the extreme sublimity of the privilege that God has conferred upon them, in contrast to the extreme degeneracy from which they have been rescued (vv.6-7). He then restates his favorite doctrine—justification by grace through faith (vv.8-9), and closes the section by saying that this grace was given for a purpose, viz., that we who are thus saved by grace should walk in good works (v.10).
Without going into great detail, I can say that none of the points made here by Paul lend any special support to a Calvinist paradigm, since non-Calvinists freely acknowledge every one of the above truths.
The features of the passage to which Calvinists like most to refer are 1) the emphasis that we needed a work of God to bring us out of death into life, and 2) their suggestion that Paul speaks of "faith" as a "gift of God."
However, on the first of these points, Paul does not speak of the order of events related to our salvation. He does emphasize the fact of our being made alive, but he does not teach here (or anywhere else) that this regeneration preceded the faith of the readers. In fact, if we wish to know the doctrine of Paul and others about which came first, the life or the faith, we will find that it is the consistent teaching of scripture (without exception) that the faith comes first, and the receiving of life is the result (e.g. John 20:31/ Romans 5:2; Eph.1:13; Col.2:12-13, etc.).
This being so, it is absurd to suggest that in this passage alone Paul has changed his mind, making regeneration the prerequisite for faith (though he makes no reference to it). In fact, the passage in Colossians 2 is the closest parallel to Ephesians 2 that can be found in the New Testament, and in the Colossians passage Paul explicitly says that we were raised with Christ (regenerated?) through our faith in God's working, and that he has made us alive as the consequence of our justification (which is by faith, thus placing faith prior to or being made alive). There is no exegetical way out of this problem for the Calvinist.
As for faith being called a gift in vv.8-9, that is not the best interpretation (this time, actually appealing to the Greek grammar as well as the context). The grammar does not favor identifying "that" (neuter in the Greek) which "is the gift of God" with "faith" (feminine in the Greek). The pronouns are supposed to agree in gender with their antecedent. Since there is no neuter word in the previous context with which to identify "that," most scholars (including some Calvinists with whom I have debated, like James White) rightly see the whole process of salvation described in these verses as "not of ourselves; it [salvation] is the gift of God, not of works." Of course, it make good sense for Paul to make such a statement about "salvation," but makes no sense to describe "faith" this way, since men are prone to attribute their salvation to their own works, and may require this correction, whereas no false doctrine has ever arisen (or at least never known from historical records) stating that "faith" is a result of works. Paul would find no reason to correct a non-existent false doctrine.
That it is salvation (not "faith") that is the "gift of God," agrees also with Jesus' use of that phrase, in John 4:10, as well as Peter's use of the term, in Acts 8:20, and Paul's own use of it elsewhere, in Romans 6:23—"the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Therefore, the Calvinist's agenda-driven "exegesis," making "faith" the gift of God, in Ephesians 2:8-9, is tried and found wanting.
You asked also about Ezekiel 36:22-34. This passage, like so many in the prophets, talks about the two aspects of God's restoration of Judah (also called Israel, after the fall of the northern kingdom) from the Babylonian captivity. It is made even clearer in Ezekiel's next chapter (37) in his vision of the dry bones. God predicts two aspects (or stages) of His restoration of Israel from captivity. The first is the return of the exiles to resettle the land of Judah and to restore the Judean state. This happened, of course, beginning in 539 BC, with the return of the remnant in the days of Zerubbabel, and continued through the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah. This corresponds to the reassembly of the dry bones (though still lacking life), in Ezekiel 37, and with verses 22-24, and, probably, verses 33-34, chapter 36.
The second stage of restoration is when the Messiah would come, and inaugurate the age of the Holy Spirit (corresponding to the "wind" or "spirit" coming into the reassembled dry bones/corpses, and with vv.25-32 of the present passage). Thus, many passages in the prophets mix the ideas of the return of the exiles from Babylon with the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit, at Pentecost, and the consequent Messianic Age—since they are two phases of the one restoration enterprise. This passage is no different, in this respect.
I do not know for which features of Ezekiel 36 you were desiring a specific explanation. The portion that relates to the present age does speak of the cleansing and the receiving of the Spirit that will accompany regeneration. However, this is not said to happen to people prior to their believing. In fact, most of these prophetic promises are made to the already faithful remnant of Israel. John explicitly states that the Spirit would be given to those "who believe in Him" (John 7:39), which, of course, places faith logically prior to the fulfillment of these promises in Ezekiel.
I hope this adequately clarifies the issues about which you inquired..
You wrote:
The difference between "perfect" and "mature" is not really a Greek parsing issue. The two English words are interchangeable options for the translation of the one Greek word (teleios.) used by Paul (another option is the English word "complete"). The choice between English options requires no knowledge of the Greek grammar, since the Greek itself provides no clues as to which English synonym is to be chosen (they all equally reflect the meaning of the Greek word, depending of context). In this case, as in so many hermeneutical cases, the choice of which English word best reflects Paul's thought must be made by appeal to the train of thought—that is, by the context. As I said previously, this is the primary consideration in settling most exegetical controversies.You are correct, that I am more inclined to see exegesis as the particulars of the Greek words and phrases as they meant to the audience present at the reading. May be an example would be 1 Corinthians 2:6, " And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless,"(Young's literal translation). Where instead of "mature" we have "perfect", which with my mindset I would interpret as those who are saved by the revelation of the mystery of Christ in them. We in a sense are seen as "perfect", the moment we receive Jesus, because of His "perfect" life in our place. If this is the meaning that is implied by this passage, what now does one make of verse 14?
Now, in deciding between "mature" and "perfect," in this passage, the context is extremely helpful to us. Those who are described as "teleios." are not the Corinthian Christians, but are contrasted with them. This is clearly evident in the opening words of both chapter two and chapter three (the excursus about "the teleios" falls within this broader context). Paul's argument is that the Corinthian Christians are "immature" (a word strongly suggested by his describing them as "babes"). In 2:1-2, Paul says that, when he had labored among them (for 18 months), he never got beyond the most basic Christian truths in his teaching them. In 3:1-2, he gives, as his reason for this limitation in his teaching, that they had never reached a level of maturity that would enable him to teach them anything except "milk." However, it is clear that there was something else that he referred to as "solid food," which he would like to have given them, had they been able to receive it. What would have made them more able to receive it? Simply being more mature (i.e., "not babes"), like those he contrasts with them in 2:6ff. These others, to whom he is able to teach "deep things of God" such as only "spiritual men" can receive, are described as "the teleios."
If we are seeking the best English equivalent for this Greek word (among the three options: "perfect," "mature," and "complete"—any of which, in a supportive context, might be justly chosen), certainly the context of Paul's discussion furnishes an adequate basis for the selection of one of these above the others in the present passage. Since the people described by this word are contrasted with the Corinthians, who are, in the context, described as "babes," needing to ingest only "milk," the word "mature" suggests itself to a degree that the other options do not.
True, people who don't do real exegesis, but play the game of "choose your favorite synonym to suit your fancy" can choose a different option. The question is not one of how well we can keep up the semblance of an argument for our position against all challenges, but one of trying to actually understand the author's intent. This is not so difficult, once we set aside our theological agendas and really follow the author's argument.
You wondered about my interpretation of Ephesians 2:1-10. Because of other commitments, I don't have the time right now to exegete ten verses. I have done so elsewhere and often. Suffice it to say that Paul, in this passage, emphasizes the grace of God in bringing the readers out of death and into life in Christ (vv.1, 5). He reminds the readers of their past paganism (vv.2-3), emphasizing how unwarranted by any merit of their own this gracious act of God was (vv.4-5). He drives this point home by waxing eloquent on the extreme sublimity of the privilege that God has conferred upon them, in contrast to the extreme degeneracy from which they have been rescued (vv.6-7). He then restates his favorite doctrine—justification by grace through faith (vv.8-9), and closes the section by saying that this grace was given for a purpose, viz., that we who are thus saved by grace should walk in good works (v.10).
Without going into great detail, I can say that none of the points made here by Paul lend any special support to a Calvinist paradigm, since non-Calvinists freely acknowledge every one of the above truths.
The features of the passage to which Calvinists like most to refer are 1) the emphasis that we needed a work of God to bring us out of death into life, and 2) their suggestion that Paul speaks of "faith" as a "gift of God."
However, on the first of these points, Paul does not speak of the order of events related to our salvation. He does emphasize the fact of our being made alive, but he does not teach here (or anywhere else) that this regeneration preceded the faith of the readers. In fact, if we wish to know the doctrine of Paul and others about which came first, the life or the faith, we will find that it is the consistent teaching of scripture (without exception) that the faith comes first, and the receiving of life is the result (e.g. John 20:31/ Romans 5:2; Eph.1:13; Col.2:12-13, etc.).
This being so, it is absurd to suggest that in this passage alone Paul has changed his mind, making regeneration the prerequisite for faith (though he makes no reference to it). In fact, the passage in Colossians 2 is the closest parallel to Ephesians 2 that can be found in the New Testament, and in the Colossians passage Paul explicitly says that we were raised with Christ (regenerated?) through our faith in God's working, and that he has made us alive as the consequence of our justification (which is by faith, thus placing faith prior to or being made alive). There is no exegetical way out of this problem for the Calvinist.
As for faith being called a gift in vv.8-9, that is not the best interpretation (this time, actually appealing to the Greek grammar as well as the context). The grammar does not favor identifying "that" (neuter in the Greek) which "is the gift of God" with "faith" (feminine in the Greek). The pronouns are supposed to agree in gender with their antecedent. Since there is no neuter word in the previous context with which to identify "that," most scholars (including some Calvinists with whom I have debated, like James White) rightly see the whole process of salvation described in these verses as "not of ourselves; it [salvation] is the gift of God, not of works." Of course, it make good sense for Paul to make such a statement about "salvation," but makes no sense to describe "faith" this way, since men are prone to attribute their salvation to their own works, and may require this correction, whereas no false doctrine has ever arisen (or at least never known from historical records) stating that "faith" is a result of works. Paul would find no reason to correct a non-existent false doctrine.
That it is salvation (not "faith") that is the "gift of God," agrees also with Jesus' use of that phrase, in John 4:10, as well as Peter's use of the term, in Acts 8:20, and Paul's own use of it elsewhere, in Romans 6:23—"the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Therefore, the Calvinist's agenda-driven "exegesis," making "faith" the gift of God, in Ephesians 2:8-9, is tried and found wanting.
You asked also about Ezekiel 36:22-34. This passage, like so many in the prophets, talks about the two aspects of God's restoration of Judah (also called Israel, after the fall of the northern kingdom) from the Babylonian captivity. It is made even clearer in Ezekiel's next chapter (37) in his vision of the dry bones. God predicts two aspects (or stages) of His restoration of Israel from captivity. The first is the return of the exiles to resettle the land of Judah and to restore the Judean state. This happened, of course, beginning in 539 BC, with the return of the remnant in the days of Zerubbabel, and continued through the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah. This corresponds to the reassembly of the dry bones (though still lacking life), in Ezekiel 37, and with verses 22-24, and, probably, verses 33-34, chapter 36.
The second stage of restoration is when the Messiah would come, and inaugurate the age of the Holy Spirit (corresponding to the "wind" or "spirit" coming into the reassembled dry bones/corpses, and with vv.25-32 of the present passage). Thus, many passages in the prophets mix the ideas of the return of the exiles from Babylon with the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit, at Pentecost, and the consequent Messianic Age—since they are two phases of the one restoration enterprise. This passage is no different, in this respect.
I do not know for which features of Ezekiel 36 you were desiring a specific explanation. The portion that relates to the present age does speak of the cleansing and the receiving of the Spirit that will accompany regeneration. However, this is not said to happen to people prior to their believing. In fact, most of these prophetic promises are made to the already faithful remnant of Israel. John explicitly states that the Spirit would be given to those "who believe in Him" (John 7:39), which, of course, places faith logically prior to the fulfillment of these promises in Ezekiel.
I hope this adequately clarifies the issues about which you inquired..
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Hi Todd,
You wrote:
Some Christians would say that "good" and "evil" are categories for which we must introduce specifically Christian definitions. To preserve their point that no unregenerate man "does good" (as per Romans 3), many will say that no work is truly "good" unless it is motivated by a desire to glorify God. To this I would say, even though the glory of God is the highest motive from which any work can spring, there is no explicit statement saying that no work done for less sterling motivations can be regarded as a good work. The man we call the "Good Samaritan" is not represented as acting consciously for the glory of God (he was not even of the right religion), but his benevolence to a needy human being is presented as an example of one who fulfilled the divine mandate to "love your neighbor as yourself." It seems that Jesus is representing this man's response to the needy man as a "good" work.
It is obviously best for good works to be done from the best of motives—and works which would otherwise be regarded as good (even worship offered to God), if done for evil motives, are clearly an abomination to God. But are there no motives besides the very best and the very worst, which fall in between these extremes? Suppose a non-Christian man simply has pity on the poor (as many non-Christians do) and is moved to give practical assistance. Is he motivated by a desire to glorify God? Probably not. Are his motives evil? Certainly we have no grounds to say that they are! They must fall in the middle category. This man's assistance to the poor is not an evil work—nor even a morally neutral work. It is a good work. It may not be able to atone for the sinfulness of other actions in his life, but it is a good work in itself. How God may choose to reward it is known only to Him (or at least it is not known to me).
You wrote:
Good questions. Jesus does not answer them directly, and neither shall I try to do so.The Bible affirms that "God is not a respecter of persons and will render to every man according to his deeds." To those who are doing good He will render blessing, and to those who do evil He will punish. As I see it, non-christians who do good works will be blessed (as you also seem to say), and christians who do evil will be punished. Do you see it this way? If so, are these blessings/punishments received in this life or the after-life?
Some Christians would say that "good" and "evil" are categories for which we must introduce specifically Christian definitions. To preserve their point that no unregenerate man "does good" (as per Romans 3), many will say that no work is truly "good" unless it is motivated by a desire to glorify God. To this I would say, even though the glory of God is the highest motive from which any work can spring, there is no explicit statement saying that no work done for less sterling motivations can be regarded as a good work. The man we call the "Good Samaritan" is not represented as acting consciously for the glory of God (he was not even of the right religion), but his benevolence to a needy human being is presented as an example of one who fulfilled the divine mandate to "love your neighbor as yourself." It seems that Jesus is representing this man's response to the needy man as a "good" work.
It is obviously best for good works to be done from the best of motives—and works which would otherwise be regarded as good (even worship offered to God), if done for evil motives, are clearly an abomination to God. But are there no motives besides the very best and the very worst, which fall in between these extremes? Suppose a non-Christian man simply has pity on the poor (as many non-Christians do) and is moved to give practical assistance. Is he motivated by a desire to glorify God? Probably not. Are his motives evil? Certainly we have no grounds to say that they are! They must fall in the middle category. This man's assistance to the poor is not an evil work—nor even a morally neutral work. It is a good work. It may not be able to atone for the sinfulness of other actions in his life, but it is a good work in itself. How God may choose to reward it is known only to Him (or at least it is not known to me).
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Steve,steve wrote:Suppose a non-Christian man simply has pity on the poor (as many non-Christians do) and is moved to give practical assistance. Is he motivated by a desire to glorify God? Probably not. Are his motives evil? Certainly we have no grounds to say that they are! They must fall in the middle category. This man's assistance to the poor is not an evil work—nor even a morally neutral work. It is a good work. It may not be able to atone for the sinfulness of other actions in his life, but it is a good work in itself. How God may choose to reward it is known only to Him (or at least it is not known to me).
Okay, this is a good example. What motivates this man to help the poor? Isn't it possible that the non-believer is motivated by the Spirit? Didn't Jesus say that the Spirit would convict the world of sin? (John 16:8) Wouldn't that mean that the Spirit of God is at work in the hearts of all men? And if so, wouldn't the Spirit convict anyone who neglected the poor?
Todd
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
I'll grant that, Todd.
Re: Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?
Steve,steve wrote:I'll grant that, Todd.
Okay, then let me take this idea a bit further... If the unbeliever, who is convicted by the Holy Spirit to help the poor, and obeys the Spirit, wouldn't God then be glorified? And in the extreme case, say we have someone who has never heard the Gospel or any teaching of Jesus, but is very obedient to the Spirit of God at work in his heart, and does many good works (because of the Spririt's leading), would this person have found salvation according to the following verse?
Heb 5:9
And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him
Todd