# Between Adam and Moses?



## Artfuldodger (Apr 6, 2015)

I'm interested in the time between Adam's sin and the Law of Moses.

A few verses;

Romans 5:13
Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break.

Romans 4:15
For the law always brings punishment on those who try to obey it. (The only way to avoid breaking the law is to have no law to break!)


Romans 4:13
Clearly, God's promise to give the whole earth to Abraham and his descendants was based not on his obedience to God's law, but on a right relationship with God that comes by faith.

Romans 4:14
If God's promise is only for those who obey the law, then faith is not necessary and the promise is pointless.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 6, 2015)

In the time between Adam and Moses there was no law yet men were punished. 

The Gentiles during that time were never under the law. Many Gentiles around the world had never heard of the Law of Moses.
They will be judged by the Law placed on their hearts.
Was this the Law of Moses or the Law of Love? How would they know of the Law of Moses if from a land far away? They could know God by his creation. They could have morals based on knowing right form wrong but many parts of the Law of Moses was only for the Jews. Gentiles in foreign land and islands weren't required to get circumcisions. They weren't required to eat shellfish and to stay away from women when they were unclean. How could all of those laws been placed in their hearts?
I understand laws about hating, unforgiveness, adultery, anger, etc.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 6, 2015)

If God was the God of Abraham, what about the time between Adam and Abraham? In other words the time before Israel was a nation. 
How did Gentiles receive salvation? Was the God of Abraham their God?  This Law that was only for the Jews, was it tattooed on the hearts of Gentiles?  
When the God of Abraham became the God of the Gentiles, did Gentiles have to follow the Torah or did the Jews quit following the Torah? I'm talking about the Great Mystery. The mystery that revealed the time when there was no more Jew or no more Gentile.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 7, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If God was the God of Abraham, what about the time between Adam and Abraham? In other words the time before Israel was a nation.
> How did Gentiles receive salvation? Was the God of Abraham their God?  This Law that was only for the Jews, was it tattooed on the hearts of Gentiles?
> When the God of Abraham became the God of the Gentiles, did Gentiles have to follow the Torah or did the Jews quit following the Torah? I'm talking about the Great Mystery. The mystery that revealed the time when there was no more Jew or no more Gentile.



There's a lot there I can't answer. What I do know is that the Jew was in Covenant with God therefore the Law was placed on them. They were suppose to have been a light to the world.
 Now the question is ...since one can only sin by disobedience of God, and the Gentile was not in covenant, could they sin? Since they were not in covenant did they have any promise of a future savior and slept at death, or did they just die ?


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 7, 2015)

Maybe the Gentile was forgiven " for they knew not what they did" ?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 7, 2015)

Has God's covenant with Abraham been fulfilled? Wasn't this covenant about the Jews returning to the land God promised?

Some people have mentioned Abraham's covenant and Abraham's faith as the Gentile's covenant with God. In other words each individual for all time has had a covenant with God based on faith. This would include every Gentile in the whole wide world. Each knows God by his creation and is without excuse. Each Gentile has some sort of law in his heart.
Also Abraham's covenant was before Israel was a nation. Some conclude Gentiles fall under Abraham's covenant. Now we might can compare the Gentile's covenant with God based on Abraham's faith but God's covenant with Abraham was strictly between God and Abraham.

I wonder what verse or passage explains the "law in the Gentiles heart?"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 7, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> There's a lot there I can't answer. What I do know is that the Jew was in Covenant with God therefore the Law was placed on them. They were suppose to have been a light to the world.
> Now the question is ...since one can only sin by disobedience of God, and the Gentile was not in covenant, could they sin? Since they were not in covenant did they have any promise of a future savior and slept at death, or did they just die ?



I was discussing this on another forum about sin before the Law of Moses. It was brought up that God punished people before the covenant of Moses. The flood was mentioned as well as Adam.

Adam did have a covenant in that God gave him many things including everlasting life if he didn't eat from the fruit of a certain tree.

Did Gentiles have conditional and unconditional covenants with God before the Resurrection?

What about original and imputed sin in relation to Gentiles?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 7, 2015)

Romans 5:14
Still, everyone died--from the time of Adam to the time of Moses--even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come.

Galatians 3:18-19
18For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. 19Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people.

It appears the Law ended with Jesus. That's  "Good News."
Now if the Law ended with Jesus----why are we going to die? 
How can we have sin with no Law?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 7, 2015)

I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.... Jesus


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 7, 2015)

19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. Abraham is from the lineage of Shem. 
I guess the other two sons begat Gentiles.
Did these people take their knowledge of God with them over the whole earth?
How is it Shem's lineage was able to keep and record their knowledge of God better than Ham and Japheth? God thought well enough of them to re-populate the world.
I understand he picked Shem's lineage for Abraham and Jesus to come out of.
Was this lack of knowledge from Ham and Japheth to allow the future mystery of salvation for the Gentiles? 
They were not in a covenant yet but regardless the Law ended with Jesus and salvation was offered to all the Gentiles.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 7, 2015)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.... Jesus



Meaning he didn't destroy the law but fulfilled it.

 19Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. 

The law was designed to show people their sins. The sins were already here before the law correct? 

Romans 5:13
Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break.

The "Law" served it's purpose yet it was designed to last only until Jesus.

Romans 5;17-19
17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

The law was over with Jesus.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 7, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I was discussing this on another forum about sin before the Law of Moses. It was brought up that God punished people before the covenant of Moses. The flood was mentioned as well as Adam.
> 
> Adam did have a covenant in that God gave him many things including everlasting life if he didn't eat from the fruit of a certain tree.
> 
> ...



Art, this is a very interesting thread title, wish I could participate more. Im at my mom's house doing some fixer ups getting it ready to put on the market so I'm working daylight to dark and then some.

 I believe the flood was local, so God's punishment came only on those He was in covenant with. Matter of fact the only time I know God punished a people He was not in covenant with were people going against His Covenant holders.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 7, 2015)

local flood?  you have to really do some twisting of scripture to get to that conclusion.  You may not believe it, but scripture is very clear that it was a worldwide flood.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 7, 2015)

NE GA Pappy said:


> local flood?  you have to really do some twisting of scripture to get to that conclusion.  You may not believe it, but scripture is very clear that it was a worldwide flood.



Yeah I don't believe that's what scripture says, but I don't have time to explain it right now, so ...alrighty then.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 8, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Art, this is a very interesting thread title, wish I could participate more. Im at my mom's house doing some fixer ups getting it ready to put on the market so I'm working daylight to dark and then some.
> 
> I believe the flood was local, so God's punishment came only on those He was in covenant with. Matter of fact the only time I know God punished a people He was not in covenant with were people going against His Covenant holders.



Good to hear you are busy helping Mom.  I wondered where you were. I thought maybe you were sick or something.
I appreciate your input, take care of Mom and post when you can. 
And, when finished with Mom could you swing by my house?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 8, 2015)

Romans 4:13
Clearly, God's promise to give the whole earth to Abraham and his descendants was based not on his obedience to God's law, but on a right relationship with God that comes by faith.

I want to understand the beginnings, the covenants, the Law, and the descendants of Noah's three sons.
I think this was the beginning of the separation of the Jews form the Gentiles. 
Separation only to re-combine the two groups after Jesus' time on earth. There must have been some reason for God to do this. 
What was the requirements of all of these worldwide Gentiles in regards to sin with no Law?

Abraham and his descendants will inherit the whole earth. This isn't based on following the Law but based on a relationship with God based on Faith. 
That is the important part of this study. I don't understand why people today, are so yoked to the Law instead of their relationship with God.
Now that the Gentiles are grafted in are we part of the descendants of Abraham. Will we inherit the whole Earth?
What does that even mean?


----------



## Huntinfool (Apr 8, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Yeah I don't believe that's what scripture says, but I don't have time to explain it right now, so ...alrighty then.



Okey Dokey


----------



## StriperAddict (Apr 8, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't understand why people today, are so yoked to the Law instead of their relationship with God.


Because rules are easy.

-- but a crucifixion ?

The strength of sin is the law...
you can't marry a little Moses with Jesus and expect new life.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 8, 2015)

http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 8, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood


"The scientific and historical evidence does not support a global flood, but is consistent with a catastrophic regional flood."

Who can argue against evidence that is scientific?

Would a man whose faith is THE evidence be up to such a task?

Yes.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 8, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> "The scientific and historical evidence does not support a global flood, but is consistent with a catastrophic regional flood."
> 
> Who can argue against evidence that is scientific?
> 
> ...



Gem, since scripture also supports a local flood, and geology supports a local flood. Why give this issue to the atheists? 

 Why should we make ourselves out to be dumb because we force a literal interpretation of scripture in our English version and in our culture without studying the Hebrew language and culture , then apply that appropriately?

 We can deny all kinds of things that don't add up, but for how long? The one thing I do know more than anything else is that Jesus Christ is my Lord. I trust the Word of God to be true, but I don't trust man's current interpretation of it. 

Native American history in the US goes back to at least 12,000 years...yet literal interpreters of the bible say the whole world is only 6000 years old, and the evidence we have as an older than 6000 year old world and human society has mounted up to the point that denying it would make any skeptic view the denier as a kook. 
 The answers are in the Book.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 8, 2015)

Hobbs, if you are concerned in how an atheist views you, be an atheist and alleviate all concern.

Hobbs!


----------



## ryanh487 (Apr 8, 2015)

The 10 Commandment Law is the Law of Heaven, and existed before creation and will exist for eternity.  It existed in the Garden of Eden -- as is shown by Cain's knowledge that murdering his brother was wrong, it existed at the time of Abraham, as is exhibited when even the heathen King knew it was wrong to sleep with Sarah, and it is shown again in the time of Joseph when he declares that it was a sin against God for him to sleep with Potipher's wife.  There are many other examples that show that those of faith KNEW the laws of God -- the engraving of the commandments on stone at Sinai was not an ISSUING of the law, but a reminder of the law to the people and the formation of a formal contract between them and God as they requested. 

Sin existed since the Garden, otherwise there would have been no fall when Adam and Eve disobeyed God.  So we must take a look at these verses and understand Paul's context, since we know there was in fact sin before Sinai, and there was sin in Heaven before creation when Satan and his angels were cast out.  I believe, in context, that Paul is referring to knowledge of the law, not existence of the law.  Those who are ignorant cannot be held to the same expectation as those with knowledge.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 8, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Hobbs, if you are concerned in how an atheist views you, be an atheist and alleviate all concern.
> 
> Hobbs!


 For me to become an atheist is impossible.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 8, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> For me to become an atheist is impossible.


Have you confirmed that through science? 

Welcome back to Kookville.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 8, 2015)

ryanh487 said:


> The 10 Commandment Law is the Law of Heaven, and existed before creation and will exist for eternity.



Yep.

And with the Law revealing the character of God, and His design for His people, a relationship that does not include recognition of the Law is ... well...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 8, 2015)

ryanh487 said:


> The 10 Commandment Law is the Law of Heaven, and existed before creation and will exist for eternity.  It existed in the Garden of Eden -- as is shown by Cain's knowledge that murdering his brother was wrong, it existed at the time of Abraham, as is exhibited when even the heathen King knew it was wrong to sleep with Sarah, and it is shown again in the time of Joseph when he declares that it was a sin against God for him to sleep with Potipher's wife.  There are many other examples that show that those of faith KNEW the laws of God -- the engraving of the commandments on stone at Sinai was not an ISSUING of the law, but a reminder of the law to the people and the formation of a formal contract between them and God as they requested.
> 
> Sin existed since the Garden, otherwise there would have been no fall when Adam and Eve disobeyed God.  So we must take a look at these verses and understand Paul's context, since we know there was in fact sin before Sinai, and there was sin in Heaven before creation when Satan and his angels were cast out.  I believe, in context, that Paul is referring to knowledge of the law, not existence of the law.  Those who are ignorant cannot be held to the same expectation as those with knowledge.



How did the Law of Heaven get lost with some of the Gentile nations? 
What about all the Laws the Jews were given that go beyond the Law of Heaven? Eating shellfish and performing homosexual acts for instance?


----------



## ryanh487 (Apr 8, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> How did the Law of Heaven get lost with some of the Gentile nations?
> What about all the Laws the Jews were given that go beyond the Law of Heaven? Eating shellfish and performing homosexual acts for instance?



When the pagan people stopped following God, they stopped passing down the traditions of his law.  Though almost every native tribe in the world, no matter how isolated, hold at least 7 of the 10 commandments as moral code, so it was passed downto some extent--many people just didn't/don't care.  

The Levitical/Temple law was a law of paper, and was designed to govern a tribe of 2,000,000 people without an earthly government, and to keep them separated as a holy standard to the world.  The laws were intended to separate them from the heathens and their methods of idolatry (cloth of mixed fabric, certain hair styles, tatoos, sexual rituals, etc), as well as to optimize health and social function (dietary and other health laws, as well as laws like the year of Jubilee, etc), setting them apart as a light of love to the surrounding nations to draw them to God. 

Homosexuality/adultery/etc are abominations to God because they deny his purpose and law for the symbol He gave us of His relationship with His Church and the ability to create after his own image -- Marriage.   Homosexuality, beastiality, and casual sex were also (and still) worship to the demon gods of local heathen cultures and the devil himself, because it defiles a Holy gift God gave His people to point to Him.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 8, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Have you confirmed that through science?
> 
> Welcome back to Kookville.



My faith in Christ does not require me to believe in a 6000 year old earth. It does give me a strong desire to rightly divide the word though, so that I am shown approved and I'm not ashamed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 8, 2015)

ryanh487 said:


> I believe, in context, that Paul is referring to knowledge of the law, not existence of the law.  Those who are ignorant cannot be held to the same expectation as those with knowledge.



As some of Ham and Japheth's line got farther and farther from God, and became Pagans, were they not held to the same expectation because their ancestors  lost this knowledge?
Would they not be ignorant?

I would assume at one point every Gentile worshiped God but as generations moved farther away they turned from God or possibly forgot God through faulty parenting.

If God was the God of Abraham, why did Gentiles even worship him? Before the mystery was revealed how did they acquire salvation. 
I mean if you had all of these Jews walking around saying the God of Abraham is not for you, why would they have faith to worship him?


----------



## ryanh487 (Apr 8, 2015)

Jews were confused and proud. Yes there is one God, and one Law, but it was for all people. Even in the old testament it says that any foreigner who bent to the law of God was counted among His people. It was pride that caused the Jews to reject the gentiles, and it was for that that Jesus called them out on many occasions. It was the Jews who received the temple and the temple law, which pointed to Christ--had they clung to the spirit of the law and a love of God they would have known that and spread that knowledge to the world. Instead they had faith in self, and identified themselves as special because of their lineage instead of the faith that they were supposed to reveal and share with the world.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 8, 2015)

ryanh487 said:


> Jews were confused and proud. Yes there is one God, and one Law, but it was for all people. Even in the old testament it says that any foreigner who bent to the law of God was counted among His people. It was pride that caused the Jews to reject the gentiles, and it was for that that Jesus called them out on many occasions. It was the Jews who received the temple and the temple law, which pointed to Christ--had they clung to the spirit of the law and a love of God they would have known that and spread that knowledge to the world. Instead they had faith in self, and identified themselves as special because of their lineage instead of the faith that they were supposed to reveal and share with the world.



What about the Gentiles that were ignorant of the Law because their ancestors had left God hundreds of years earlier?
Especially the  ones in far away lands? Was this who Paul was talking about?


----------



## ryanh487 (Apr 8, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> What about the Gentiles that were ignorant of the Law because their ancestors had left God hundreds of years earlier?
> Especially the  ones in far away lands? Was this who Paul was talking about?



I believe so. Paul says in Romans that man is without excuse, because the glory of nature points to God. But those who were excluded would have no way of knowing the full extent of the law if it was lost to them over time-only that there was something bigger than them to worship.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 8, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> What about the Gentiles that were ignorant of the Law because their ancestors had left God hundreds of years earlier?
> Especially the  ones in far away lands? Was this who Paul was talking about?



The Gentiles were not under the law, for they were not in covenant with God. Those that were converted still were not under the entirety of the law hence the reason Paul argued to the council of Jerusalem that the gentiles should not be circumcised.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 8, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The Gentiles were not under the law, for they were not in covenant with God. Those that were converted still were not under the entirety of the law hence the reason Paul argued to the council of Jerusalem that the gentiles should not be circumcised.



I don't understand what that means, "not under the Law."
You mean the Jews had all of these laws they had to follow and the Gentiles had none? That doesn't seem fair. Did the Gentiles have some sort of universal salvation?

Did the Jews actually have to follow all of those laws for salvation? That doesn't seem quite fair either, now that we have grace. We have this free grace and all of those ancient Jews had to live like Nuns their whole lives. Well they tried to follow the Law but never could. It was just to show them that they never could and would need a Messiah. God knew they wouldn't be able to live without sin. 
And to think, just to be their schoolmaster. Just to show the way to the Messiah. 
The sad part is most of them ended up not believing in the Messiah. Generations of Law keepers wasted on their future generations while the Gentiles just sat back and waited.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 8, 2015)

So which group had it the worst or best?
Law keeping Jews before Jesus came.
Not under the Law Gentiles before Jesus came.
Jews who persecuted Jesus.
Gentiles who persecuted Jesus.
Jews and Gentile believers after the death of Jesus.
Gentiles who have never heard of Jesus. Innocent by ignorance?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't understand what that means, "not under the Law."
> You mean the Jews had all of these laws they had to follow and the Gentiles had none? That doesn't seem fair. Did the Gentiles have some sort of universal salvation?
> 
> Did the Jews actually have to follow all of those laws for salvation? That doesn't seem quite fair either, now that we have grace. We have this free grace and all of those ancient Jews had to live like Nuns their hole lives. Well they tried to but never could. it was just to show them that they never could and would need a Messiah.
> ...



"Not under the Law" is a phrase used in Paul's epistles to indicate that we are not dependent upon the Law as a "means" of justification.  Every person born of woman was, is, or will be under the Law, and is condemned by it.  It is God's Law, right?  God doesn't change, right?

While it's true that perfect obedience results in justification, it is not a achievable path (that got kinda messed up a while back).

Much confusion has been created by those who mistake man's misunderstand of the Law, and the abuse of the Law, for The Law which is holy.

______________________________________
Mat. 5 is a good starting place ... "but I say unto you..."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> "Not under the Law" is a phrase used in Paul's epistles to indicate that we are not dependent upon the Law as a "means" of justification.  Every person born of woman was, is, or will be under the Law, and is condemned by it.  It is God's Law, right?  God doesn't change, right?
> 
> While it's true that perfect obedience results in justification, it is not a achievable path (that got kinda messed up a while back).
> 
> ...



God doesn't change is right. I think that is more related to his plan than to, Jews & Gentiles before the Cross and Jews & Gentiles after the Cross. 
There is some variation as to who was under the Law before and after the Cross. God's plan didn't change but he did have a change in how salvation would be achieved before and after the Cross as it pertained to the Law. Jesus eventually offered salvation to the dead saints. Who were these dead saints? Jews who followed the Law? Gentiles who _______?

I perceived from scripture that everyone was a Gentile up until Noah's three sons replenished the Earth. One was the lineage of the future Jewish nation and the other two were the lineage of the various Gentile nations.
At some point the Jewish lineage had a Covenant with God that the Gentiles didn't have. 
Then at another point in time that Covenant of Law was fulfilled by Jesus.
At that point there was no more Jew or Gentile as we were all grafted in, or can be, to become a descendant of Abraham. We either all became adopted Jews or we all became adopted Gentiles after the Cross. We all returned to the Unity we had before the Jewish nation and lineage was formed. There is no Jew or Gentile once again. Just the way it started. Part of the mystery? Was the mystery that after the cross salvation was now being offered to the Gentiles or that there is no more Jew and Gentile? 

Wasn't the God of Abraham always the God of the Gentile? If so then what was the mystery revealed after the cross? 
We are now all under the Covenant of grace provide by the death of Jesus. What covenant was the Gentile under before grace? 
Changes that effected man but God never changing.


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 9, 2015)

In the old covenant(s) the Holy Spirit is searched for and thought on by people's understanding. Their understanding is that there is a separation between God and man and therefore a relationship of bargaining, and of cause and effect, return and exile, individually and socially.

 Only the rare few can achieve a direct relationship with God that is intimate and ongoing.The masses are at the mercy of their spiritual leaders and the few that are with the Spirit. God is out there, or outer for them, just like the Cloud that guided the Hebrews in the desert. He is also out there in the tent.

 Although people ( Hebrews) know to seek forgiveness personally for sin and offences, sacrifice at the temple is for the atonement of unwillful sin and therefore recognition that all human efforts to not sin are quasi futile--because of original sin. Same thing went for the society.

Now  righteous people of the old covenants lamented to God their state, that despite their best efforts--it was never good enough. The push and pull on the individual and social life ( national life) of peoples was  devastating despite best efforts for those who viewed righteousness from  perspective thought by God.  

So God said to the people that prayed for justice, that one day He would teach people Himself, that no more would people teach others about Him. And in so doing all people would have access to righteousness direct from Him.

Therefore the need for a new covenant, whereby the ways of God with man were not only out there, but internal to each and every individual and by definition internal to society in a relationship of intimate personal faith, hope and outlook.

And this is why you might have read or heard that the prophets, saints and especially David who lived in the Old Hebrew Covenant, as related in scripture, were Christian. God was not a presence out there for them. God was intimately present in their day to day lives, because they let Him teach them. And God present to them inwardly, they knew His righteousness inwardly. They needed no man to teach them about God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and a Redeemer ( the savoir) and the man they now they lived with. God thought sufficiently on both.

For me, The Law is simply a name for the old covenants, for the old paradigm from the fall from grace to the restoration by grace of man's spirit and outlook-- from an out there relationship with the Lord, to an in all of us intimate, loving relationship with Him and the world.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> God doesn't change is right. I think that is more related to his plan than to, Jews & Gentiles before the Cross and Jews & Gentiles after the Cross.
> There is some variation as to who was under the Law before and after the Cross. God's plan didn't change but he did have a change in how salvation would be achieved before and after the Cross as it pertained to the Law. Jesus eventually offered salvation to the dead saints. Who were these dead saints? Jews who followed the Law? Gentiles who _______?
> 
> I perceived from scripture that everyone was a Gentile up until Noah's three sons replenished the Earth. One was the lineage of the future Jewish nation and the other two were the lineage of the various Gentile nations.
> ...



I'm on the clock so ....

Highlighted makes no sense, considering Providence.

There's an awful lot of changing going on in your post.
Which time did God get it right?
That means He was wrong a bunch of times.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 9, 2015)

One of the benefits of being in Covenant with God is the blessings that came on the nation. Of course they were also subject to  curses from God .


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I'm on the clock so ....
> 
> Highlighted makes no sense, considering Providence.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying God changed his plan nor that he ever got anything wrong.
Perhaps me using the word "changes" to the way people were or weren't under the law was the wrong word to use. 
Using the word "change" does make it appear that God presented the Law and when he saw that man couldn't follow the Law he "changed" to the Messiah. 
I could see where my usage of that word made it appear I was saying God changed his plan for Providence.

The only "change" I was referring to was from Law to grace. I don't know a better way to present it without using the word "change."
Maybe "difference" would be a better word. There were differences from Jews and Gentiles. There are "differences" between the Old Covenant and New Covenant. 
God hasn't changed his mind by presenting his New Covenant, it was just different form his Old Covenant.
The new Covenant has the "difference" of being for all to include the Jew & Gentile.
There are some differences but they aren't "changes" from God.
Am I explaining myself better this time?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> One of the benefits of being in Covenant with God is the blessings that came on the nation. Of course they were also subject to  curses from God .



Such as captivity?


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't understand what that means, "not under the Law."
> You mean the Jews had all of these laws they had to follow and the Gentiles had none? That doesn't seem fair. Did the Gentiles have some sort of universal salvation?
> 
> Did the Jews actually have to follow all of those laws for salvation? That doesn't seem quite fair either, now that we have grace. We have this free grace and all of those ancient Jews had to live like Nuns their whole lives. Well they tried to follow the Law but never could. It was just to show them that they never could and would need a Messiah. God knew they wouldn't be able to live without sin.
> ...



 Art, the old covenants have generational connections, even from Abraham back. 
If you want to load up some hammers and shovels, come on over here and I'll explain my understanding of Genesis with you while we finish up some work here. I'm not too far from you today, Hancock county side of Lake Sinclair....bring a fishing pole and we'll wear out some fish when we're done.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Art, the old covenants have generational connections, even from Abraham back.
> If you want to load up some hammers and shovels, come on over here and I'll explain my understanding of Genesis with you while we finish up some work here. I'm not too far from you today, Hancock county side of Lake Sinclair....bring a fishing pole and we'll wear out some fish when we're done.



I wish I could, parts of that offer sound inviting.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

How can a man with a fallen nature have the Law written in his heart?

Romans 7:7
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

How does a depraved man know the Law? Even if he knew it he couldn't follow it. 
Let's say God suddenly elects a Gentile from a small African village, was the law already written in his heart before his conversion or during his conversion?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

I must say I could personally understand Christianity better if we never had Jews and Gentiles, covenants, chosen nations, etc. 
I could understand it better if Noah had only one son and we all came through him. If God wasn't just the God of Abraham for a period unless we were all children of Abraham from the beginning. If we were all from the lineage of Shem. I don't understand the separation into Jews and Gentiles only to be returned as one.  
These scattered Gentiles who went into the world and lost their knowledge of God is confusing. I wonder if the Lost Tribes of Jews are now somewhere on some island with no knowledge of God? 
Sure everyone has knowledge based on the creation and nature but how can we have all of those Laws based on scripture without having the scripture?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not saying God changed his plan nor that he ever got anything wrong.
> Perhaps me using the word "changes" to the way people were or weren't under the law was the wrong word to use.
> Using the word "change" does make it appear that God presented the Law and when he saw that man couldn't follow the Law he "changed" to the Messiah.
> I could see where my usage of that word made it appear I was saying God changed his plan for Providence.
> ...



Art, make a note: your post only has one “?”.  The answer is yes, not that I agree with your points, but the way you have stated them allows me to understand where you’re coming from.

I don’t think that the “change vs. difference” is decisively helpful in this case; maybe a little, but it doesn’t close the gap.  When you and I have conversed before we have had trouble narrowing the scope to the point that we could sufficiently define the differences in our views.  Let’s try again.

Looking at your sentence: 
“The only "change" I was referring to was from Law to grace.”

If I assume correctly that you are referring to “salvation by Law” being changed to “salvation by grace”, I will respond with a question: Who experienced salvation by Law?  You see, I am not aware of anyone.  If I am correct, then salvation by Law must be one of those misunderstandings that I referred to in my previous post, and teaching that the means of salvation changed is one of the abuses.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

Joshua 24:1-3
1Then Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel and for their heads and their judges and their officers; and they presented themselves before God. 2Joshua said to all the people, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods. 3'Then I took your father Abraham from beyond the River, and led him through all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his descendants and gave him Isaac.

This must be the path from non-believing Gentile to the true God believing patriarch of the Jews. What gods did the Canaanites worship?
I guess Shem's lineage lost their knowledge of God too.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Art, make a note: your post only has one “?”.  The answer is yes, not that I agree with your points, but the way you have stated them allows me to understand where you’re coming from.
> 
> I don’t think that the “change vs. difference” is decisively helpful in this case; maybe a little, but it doesn’t close the gap.  When you and I have conversed before we have had trouble narrowing the scope to the point that we could sufficiently define the differences in our views.  Let’s try again.
> 
> ...



I think I see your point as no one was actually saved until Jesus died, resurrected, and ascended. 
Something was different though before Christ as it pertains to Jews, Gentiles, covenants, and the Law.

What was that difference? Again the saints awaited in the ground for Jesus. What made them saints? What did they do or believe that offered them future salvation. 
Did they believe in John 3:16 but only as a promise? 
Were they required to believe in the promise of the Messiah for their future salvation?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think I see your point as no one was actually saved until Jesus died, resurrected, and ascended.
> Something was different though before Christ as it pertains to Jews, Gentiles, covenants, and the Law.
> 
> What was that difference? Again the saints awaited in the ground for Jesus. What made them saints? What did they do or believe that offered them future salvation.
> ...



Woops … 5 questions.  That’s kinda nice though, it gives me a choice. ï�Š

“What did they do or believe that offered them future salvation?”

Nothing, salvation is by grace alone.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 9, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Woops … 5 questions.  That’s kinda nice though, it gives me a choice. ï�Š
> 
> “What did they do or believe that offered them future salvation?”
> 
> Nothing, salvation is by grace alone.



True, but I think his question is why were some like Lazarus in Abraham s bosom and some like the rich man in torments. 

 There must have been some kind of judgement for some of the dead to be in paradise while others awaited Christ in torments....?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Woops … 5 questions.  That’s kinda nice though, it gives me a choice. 
> 
> “What did they do or believe that offered them future salvation?”
> 
> Nothing, salvation is by grace alone.



What was the purpose of the Old Testament? If man's election before or after the Cross is from God's grace, why did God present the Old Testament? Why have a set of Laws that don't mean anything? People are too depraved to follow them anyway. People so depraved we must depend on the Holy Spirit to keep the Law for us. And with election what does it even matter? Is it just to prove to other men who is elected? Maybe that's the purpose of sin and the Law. To show other men who is elected. The Holy spirit producing fruits in the elect to give us the outward appearance of a Christian.
It would be sad for a lost sinner to see this and realize he may never have the ability to produce Holy Spirit fruit. Then again if he is depraved, he wouldn't seek such ability. Just like the depraved pagan Gentiles around the world. They aren't waiting on God to elect. God elects through nothing they do anyway.
If the cross changed nothing why didn't God send Jesus after Adam sinned? Why did he separate the Jew from the Gentile? 
Everything seems quite complicated with the Jews, Gentiles, covenants, Law, heart placed law, ignorance of the Law, and no one is without excuse. Old Testament, New Testament, grace, and election.
If salvation is based on nothing but election, and it may very well be, then I can only hope for Universal Salvation.
Those Primitive Baptist Universalist may be on to something. God electing pagan Gentiles from around the world to include Abraham.
No one being able to follow the Law until God elects. The law serving no purpose. Spreading the Gospel serving no purpose. Grace being granted to Hindus.
Yes, I'm beginning to see this more clearly. Universal salvation or at least Universal Election. Nothing based on anything man does or has done. 
Abraham didn't have a choice to convert, his faith was from God. God wasn't going to change his mind and choose a descendant of  Ham or Japheth. Everything happened just the way God planned it.
We just don't know why he made such elaborate plans. We may never know why Ham and Japheth produced Gentiles who lost their knowledge of God only to be elected by grace in total ignorance of why.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 9, 2015)

“The law serving no purpose.”
That didn’t come from Scripture.

“Spreading the Gospel serving no purpose.”
It serves God’s purpose.

“Nothing based on anything man does or has done.”
Who sets the agenda, the Creator or the created.

“Everything happened just the way God planned it.”
Thank you lord, that you allow us to participate.

Now look at that Art, we’re off track again.

You sound frustrated.
Try looking at each thing you said in this post but change the basis of consideration from a man centered economy to a God centered economy.  Then, if you choose, go back one step and respond again.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

OK, after that mouthful I wanted to say, the basis of salvation has always been the death of Christ.
Christ provided the atonement of sins for everyone before and after the cross. 
The next thing I'm reminded of is faith in God, before and after the Cross.
Now how was this faith delivered to the Gentile pagans living around the world? What brought Abraham to God? Away from what he was believing?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> “The law serving no purpose.”
> That didn’t come from Scripture.
> 
> “Spreading the Gospel serving no purpose.”
> ...



Frustrated in the complexity of it all. 

Satisfied in the simplicity of Grace.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> True, but I think his question is why were some like Lazarus in Abraham s bosom and some like the rich man in torments.
> 
> There must have been some kind of judgement for some of the dead to be in paradise while others awaited Christ in torments....?



Frustrated that some await judgement.

Content that God can elect the Hindu or Gentile pagan that has never even heard the Word of God.

Confused as to the difference.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2015)

Think about it;
Lets go back to the Old Testament. Far away Gentile pagan islanders being elected.
Jews born under the Law of Moses, following the Law of Moses, not being elected.
Salvation isn't based on anything individuals in either group did. 
Why have the two different groups?
Yet there will be a judgement.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Frustrated that some await judgement.
> 
> Content that God can elect the Hindu or Gentile pagan that has never even heard the Word of God.
> 
> Confused as to the difference.



Maybe God had the same plan for all in the eternity, but had another " agreement" with some while they lived on earth? Maybe some had agreed to a contract so they would be the light of the world...and get the blessings on this side of the world? Maybe that caused them to be too concerned with this side of life and their national heritage?... Maybe.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> OK, after that mouthful I wanted to say, the basis of salvation has always been the death of Christ.
> Christ provided the atonement of sins for everyone before and after the cross.
> The next thing I'm reminded of is faith in God, before and after the Cross.
> Now how was this faith delivered to the Gentile pagans living around the world? What brought Abraham to God? Away from what he was believing?



The same thing that brought you.



Artfuldodger said:


> Frustrated in the complexity of it all.
> 
> Satisfied in the simplicity of Grace.



The simplicity of grace is beautiful, isn’t it?  Even depraved men can’t mess it up, but they can falsely complicate it.




Artfuldodger said:


> Think about it;
> Lets go back to the Old Testament. Far away Gentile pagan islanders being elected.
> Jews born under the Law of Moses, following the Law of Moses, not being elected.
> Salvation isn't based on anything individuals in either group did.
> Why have the two different groups?Yet there will be a judgement.



following = always obeying all of it?

There is neither Jew nor Greek (Gentile), there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise (Gal 3).

But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God (Rm 2).


HINT!!: Everything is less complicated when handled one at a time.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 10, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> The same thing that brought you.
> 
> The simplicity of grace is beautiful, isn’t it?  Even depraved men can’t mess it up, but they can falsely complicate it.
> 
> ...



I understand grace. I understand salvation. I understand it is nothing we do. I understand that NOW there is no Jew or Gentile. I understand God can elect whomever he desires. I understand we should follow the commandment of love. I understand being a descendant of Abraham.

What I don't understand is the Jew and Gentile separation and back to neither Jew nor Gentile.
The time between Adam and Moses. Now there is neither Jew nor Gentile but it hasn't always been this way. A long, long time ago there was only Gentiles and through Shem came the Jews. Once again as in "always" God CHOSE, not man. God chose to become the God of Abraham.
God chose a nation to give a Covenant of Law to. God chose the mother of the Messiah to be of the lineage of David. God blinded the Jews to carry out his plan of the Cross. 
I guess one could say God blinded the Jews to CHOOSE the Gentiles. The Jews were only chosen to provide the path to the Gentiles salvation.

Even as noteworthy and important as some "men" were in the Bible, even they couldn't change God's plan.
Men such as Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, David, Mary & Jesus couldn't venture off course from God's plan.
If any of them did so, it would change God's plan.
For me or any man to believe so would be falsely complicating the simplicity of grace.

I guess I'm just trying to understand God's plan of the time between Adam and Moses. There is nothing wrong with that is there?


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> How can a man with a fallen nature have the Law written in his heart?
> 
> Romans 7:7
> What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
> ...



Man is born into a social structure. Social structure have taboos. Sometimes forces of nature are explained by using social analogies and in turn the forces of nature are made to explain social taboos, goodness, offence, rebellion and conformity. 

For example the earth can be a mother, the sea her nephew, an ancient grand son can be hunting game with his dogs ( stars) in the sky ... And in turn the people can use these analogies ( the stars, the heavens, nature, the sea etc) as spiritual talking points regards their societies and the individuals therein.. etc...

My point is that the social structure people are born and nurtured into form the "law" in an individuals heart. Some of these laws can exacerbate depravity, some are more in keeping with the kindness and judgement of God we know today-- or as per the issues regards redemption.

So Art, you ask the question: "I guess I'm just trying to understand God's plan of the time between Adam and Moses. There is nothing wrong with that is there?"

 My understanding is that God is letting Adam and Eve's children with their freedom concerning what is good and evil.  His plan is perhaps to  leave them to the their world until they can sufficiently organize their prayers and that seeking Him is genuine from which He can organize a people until they pray to Him for justice and relief from their state ( oppression) and prayers to Him who created them in the first place... to which by grace He will offer them to be born again  spiritually through Christ and promise that one day bodily there will also be a resurrection... as per His original design(s) for man. Perhaps.

It seems to me that throughout history God is more than willing to give man freedom---even if it leads man from riches to rags. And thus the story of the prodigal son's relevance today and many, many yrs ago.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I guess I'm just trying to understand God's plan of the time between Adam and Moses. There is nothing wrong with that is there?


Isn't Genesis 3:15 sufficient for that?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 10, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Isn't Genesis 3:15 sufficient for that?



I don't believe that explains the chosen path of Jesus only his prophesy. Why did Jesus need to be a Jew?
Why was the Jewish lineage formed from the Gentile lineage to provide a different nation that was chosen to have a covenant of law? 
Especially just to have the Jew and Gentile to eventually be re-combined.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 10, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> The same thing that brought you.
> 
> The simplicity of grace is beautiful, isn’t it?  Even depraved men can’t mess it up, but they can falsely complicate it.
> 
> ...



Romans 4:13
Clearly, God's promise to give the whole earth to Abraham and his descendants was based not on his obedience to God's law, but on a right relationship with God that comes by faith.

Yet Abraham was elected to receive the whole earth. This wasn't based on his obedience but election/faith?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't believe that explains the chosen path of Jesus only his prophesy.


Is there a difference?


Artfuldodger said:


> Why did Jesus need to be a Jew?


In order to be the Jesus.


Artfuldodger said:


> Why was the Jewish lineage formed from the Gentile lineage to provide a different nation that was chosen to have a covenant of law?


Was there a Gentile lineage prior to the formation?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I understand grace. I understand salvation. I understand it is nothing we do. I understand that NOW there is no Jew or Gentile. I understand God can elect whomever he desires. I understand we should follow the commandment of love. I understand being a descendant of Abraham.
> 
> What I don't understand is the Jew and Gentile separation and back to neither Jew nor Gentile.
> The time between Adam and Moses. Now there is neither Jew nor Gentile but it hasn't always been this way. A long, long time ago there was only Gentiles and through Shem came the Jews. Once again as in "always" God CHOSE, not man. God chose to become the God of Abraham.
> ...



On the clock again.
One question … great!!
No, it’s very important.  I don’t see how we can get God’s revelation without it.
Man, you’ve got some great stuff in this post.  My eyes are a little moist.

Now, all of the highlighted (maybe more, I’m really hurrying) still indicate that you have not ejected the idea of God changing.  Flex your spiritual muscles and try this.  There are not, and never have been 4 spiritual groups, elect Jews, un-elect Jews, elect Gentiles, and un-elect Gentiles; from a spiritual perspective (God’s perspective) there were only, are only, and always will be only God’s People, and not God’s People.

Two truths that must be:
"God is not a respecter of people"
“I will be your God, and you will be my People.”

Gotta go.


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 4:13
> Clearly, God's promise to give the whole earth to Abraham and his descendants was based not on his obedience to God's law, but on a right relationship with God that comes by faith.
> 
> Yet Abraham was elected to receive the whole earth. This wasn't based on his obedience but election/faith?



Yea, Abraham was then on the fast track back to fact Jack. One creator, one God and he had the right one.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 10, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> On the clock again.
> One question … great!!
> No, it’s very important.  I don’t see how we can get God’s revelation without it.
> Man, you’ve got some great stuff in this post.  My eyes are a little moist.
> ...



Man didn't make the separation of the Jew and Gentile. I didn't make the initial separation and I didn't make their eventual unity. I'm only showing and exploring this initial separation and eventual unity. 
I don't know to what extent this separation did, only that it is there.
I'm sure it did nothing in regards to who God elects as an individual or nation. I can't deny that God elects individuals or nations nor that these election are based on anything man does.
I can only explore the separations or differences given by Scripture. Scripture shows some differences between Jews and Gentiles. None of it is related to a change in God. It's only related to his plan. If his plan was to separate Shem and Abraham from the Gentiles to provide a lineage for a Jewish Messiah, that isn't a change, it's God's plan.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Man didn't make the separation of the Jew and Gentile. I didn't make the initial separation and I didn't make their eventual unity. I'm only showing and exploring this initial separation and eventual unity.
> I don't know to what extent this separation did, only that it is there.
> I'm sure it did nothing in regards to who God elects as an individual or nation. I can't deny that God elects individuals or nations nor that these election are based on anything man does.
> I can only explore the separations or differences given by Scripture. Scripture shows some differences between Jews and Gentiles. None of it is related to a change in God. It's only related to his plan. If his plan was to separate Shem and Abraham from the Gentiles to provide a lineage for a Jewish Messiah, that isn't a change, it's God's plan.





hummerpoo said:


> There is neither Jew nor Greek (Gentile), there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise (Gal 3).
> 
> But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God (Rm 2).
> 
> ...





gemcgrew said:


> Isn't Genesis 3:15 sufficient for that?





gemcgrew said:


> Is there a difference?
> 
> In order to be the Jesus.
> 
> Was there a Gentile lineage prior to the formation?





hummerpoo said:


> There are not, and never have been 4 spiritual groups, elect Jews, un-elect Jews, elect Gentiles, and un-elect Gentiles; from a spiritual perspective (God’s perspective) there were only, are only, and always will be only God’s People, and not God’s People.
> 
> Two truths that must be:
> "God is not a respecter of people"
> “I will be your God, and you will be my People.”



God wrote the instructions for a two-field matrix in MS Excel; trying to fill a four-field matrix with variable subfields in MS Access by those instructions, and get meaningful data, is very "confusing".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 10, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Is there a difference?
> 
> In order to be the Jesus.
> 
> Was there a Gentile lineage prior to the formation?



Genesis 3:15 doesn't explain the lineage of Jesus.

Why did Jesus need to be Jewish? Why did God need to choose a particular nation? If this Jewish-Gentile thing doesn't separate then why did God separate?
God chose Abraham and God chose Israel. He must of had something in mind in doing so. Otherwise we would have never been Jew or Gentile.

Yes there was and is a Gentile lineage prior to Abraham. Abraham is considered the first Jew or at least the Patriarch of all the Jews.
Not every child of Noah's three sons are considered of Jewish lineage even though they all came from Noah.
Noah's lineage came from Adam. My lineage came from Adam.
Yet in Galatians we are told there is neither Jew nor Gentile. If there never was this would not have been mentioned by Paul as it would have never been an issue.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 10, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> There are not, and never have been 4 spiritual groups, elect Jews, un-elect Jews, elect Gentiles, and un-elect Gentiles; from a spiritual perspective (God’s perspective) there were only, are only, and always will be only God’s People, and not God’s People.
> 
> Two truths that must be:
> "God is not a respecter of people"
> ...


Great post HP! A constant reminder is required as to maintain the Creator/creature distinctive.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 10, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Great post HP! A constant reminder is required as to maintain the Creator/creature distinctive.



Is there a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit distinction of the Creator?

While it is true that the Seeds of Abraham were chosen by the Creator in his book before creating, this same creator made a distinction himself by making Jews and Gentiles.
This same Creator made the distinction of choosing the Jewish lineage for his Son to be born a man into from Mary on back to David.
This same Creator made the distinction to choose a nation for his treasure.

"He chose you to be his own special possession out of all the nations on earth."

This same Creator returned us all heirs to this Nation. Now there is neither gentile nor Jew.

Are you and hummerpoo saying there never was a Gentile or Jew? Why is it that when I show this distinction I'm  saying anything about the Creator/creature distinction?
Didn't the Creator make this distinction in his creation? It doesn't change the Creator/creature distinction.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 11, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is there a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit distinction of the Creator?


It appears so... from within creation.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 11, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is there a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit distinction of the Creator?
> 
> While it is true that the Seeds of Abraham were chosen by the Creator in his book before creating, this same creator made a distinction himself by making Jews and Gentiles.
> This same Creator made the distinction of choosing the Jewish lineage for his Son to be born a man into from Mary on back to David.
> ...



You said, “Didn't the Creator make this distinction in his creation?”

If I may presume to change your question to the one that assume is what your driving at: Didn’t the Creator make a distinction that He then took away?

No, if He did that He would not be God.  When God does something, it is done, it is not a mistake, nobody changes it, nobody’s failure nullifies it, it is done.

The descendants of Abraham, in the Spirit, are the followers of God through Christ today.  God made the distinction between Abraham's Spiritual descendants and the rest of His creation, and He has not taken it away.

God’s covenant with His people is very important in understanding His revelation of Himself to us .  It is expressed in Scripture in many ways, but is never changed in its core meaning or application.  For example:

 And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so *you shall be a blessing;

That’s the “promise” that Paul refers to in Galatians 3.
The first three lines are saying “I will be your God”
The last line is saying “You will be My people”.

A good place to gain understanding of  “I will be you God” is from reading Ezekiel.  There you find “that the world will know that I am God” is stated in some form over and over, as the reason for God’s actions.  Crudely stated, God is an evangelist, and His people is one of the tools He uses in evangelizing. 

The superscript  in the last line above states that the Hebrew is literally “be a blessing”; it’s as much a command as a statement of the necessary result.  The conclusion is that, God having blessed His people, God’s people will bless Him, they will acknowledge His blessings, they will praise Him, they will obey His commands, they will show gratitude, in short, they will worship Him (after all, they didn’t choose Him, He chose them).

It might help eliminate some confusion between the Spiritual descendants of Abraham and the descendants  of Abraham’s flesh to apply the “parable of the tares”.

Again, God did make a distinction (His people), but He has not changed that distinction.  As Paul made clear “he is a Jew who is one inwardly” and “you are Abraham’s descendants”.

By the way, what was that subject that we were supposed to stay on at the beginning; something to do with the Law as I recall.*


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2015)

It was on the Law. I'm assuming the "Law" was never about salvation. The Law was just to reveal sin.
Salvation is from God. God can elect whomever and it's not based on anything man does. There was a time before Jesus came to Earth. Back in that time God elected Orthodox Jews. Salvation was by a relationship with God by faith. God can still elect non Jesus believing Jews.

Now I know this is still true after the Cross. Nothing has "changed" regarding how man is saved.  God has mercy on whom he has mercy. The Cross didn't change God's plan or way he offers salvation.
Do you suppose God still saves Orthodox Jews? When did man have to start believing Jesus died for his sins? Is that even a part of salvation by election? If God can elect a Hindu, he can surely elect a Orthodox Jew. But after the Cross the Jew has heard the Gospel. Still, nothing has changed?
One can't be saved by the Law and never could be. One can't be saved except by election and never could be.

I'm still confused about believing Jesus died for our sins. I was always taught that was the only way to see God the Father. Maybe Jesus being the only way is about his death and it's  not a requirement to believe for salvation.

To the free will believers, what about the saints before the Cross? Did they have to believe that Jesus would some day die for their sins? To the Free will believers can God elect the Orthodox Jew that doesn't believe in Jesus. 
What did the Orthodox Jew need to do to gain salvation before the cross? Follow the Law or just have faith in God? Is this still the only requirement by the Orthodox Jew?
What about the Gentile before the Cross, follow the Law on his heart or have faith in God? What about after the Cross? No change?

I guess their might be some major belief differences based on one's belief in free will or election as to what the Cross provided or changed. 

Maybe Jesus died for the sins of the world. I can see why the Universal Primitive Baptist believed as they did. 
Jesus dying for all of the people who died before him who had never even heard of him. Jesus dying for all the future generations who will never hear about him. Or if not universal salvation, universal election. God electing people around the world who have never heard the Gospel message.

When were we required to start believing Jesus died for our sins?
Why do so many people believe we are under the Law when it appears no one was ever under the Law because it never pertained to salvation.
I'm beginning to figure out Election. It is all from God. No one has ever been required to follow the Law or believe in Jesus. God can elect a Hindu if he so desires. Universal Election, I like that concept.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 11, 2015)

Art, all I can think of is: go back to Post #23 and come forward ...... v...e...r...y... ...s...l...o...w...l...y.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2015)

ryanh487 said:


> The 10 Commandment Law is the Law of Heaven, and existed before creation and will exist for eternity.  It existed in the Garden of Eden -- as is shown by Cain's knowledge that murdering his brother was wrong, it existed at the time of Abraham, as is exhibited when even the heathen King knew it was wrong to sleep with Sarah, and it is shown again in the time of Joseph when he declares that it was a sin against God for him to sleep with Potipher's wife.  There are many other examples that show that those of faith KNEW the laws of God -- the engraving of the commandments on stone at Sinai was not an ISSUING of the law, but a reminder of the law to the people and the formation of a formal contract between them and God as they requested.
> 
> Sin existed since the Garden, otherwise there would have been no fall when Adam and Eve disobeyed God.  So we must take a look at these verses and understand Paul's context, since we know there was in fact sin before Sinai, and there was sin in Heaven before creation when Satan and his angels were cast out.  I believe, in context, that Paul is referring to knowledge of the law, not existence of the law.  Those who are ignorant cannot be held to the same expectation as those with knowledge.



Back to post 23;
"those of faith KNEW the laws of God"

Only those of faith? I though everyone knew the Laws of God. None are without excuse.

"Those who are ignorant cannot be held to the same expectation"

Who would be ignorant of God's Law?

I'm gonna agree that everyone knows right from wrong and that the written Law only revealed what sin was. Sin was already present through Adam.
Murder, adultery, lying, cheating, anger, etc.

I'm not so sure about the Ten Commandments or Levitical Laws. Sabbath keeping, tithing, animals sacrifices, diets, and etc.

I don't see how every person in the whole world could know of such laws without being presented  by some form of written or at least another man telling them. The laws in Leviticus and other Laws for the future Jews.
I don't think those are the Laws written in the hearts of every man.

Regardless we now have morals, sins, written in heart laws. and written on stone laws. We know how we are suppose to live. We know what we are to do to please God. 

We are suppose to love God and love our brother as ourselves. None of that will or can make us good enough to gain our own salvation. For this we must either believe Jesus died for our sins or either God will elect us.
Of those two it still goes back to Jesus' death.
Death for sin atonement, the washing in Christ's blood.
Now could Christ' death do this for the saints who preceded him in death, sure it did. 
What did they have to do for this to happen. They either had to have faith in God or be elected.

Nothing has changed in the way God saves. We either must have faith in God, believe Jesus died for our sins, or be elected.
OK when did "must believe in Jesus get added to the equation?" Oh yeah, that's something a man decided he must do. Man added that requirement to the equation.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 11, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Back to post 23;
> "those of faith KNEW the laws of God"
> 
> Only those of faith? I though everyone knew the Laws of God. None are without excuse.



No, "his eternal power and divine nature" (Rm. 1:20) sometimes called general revelation.

That's why we work slowly through God's word.  We treat it with reverence, it's THE word of God, it's His revelation of Himself, it is the Creator instructing the creation, it is God communicating to His people.  We must allow the Spirit into the conversation.  Why did Jesus speak in parables (Mat. 13)?  It's not our eyes of flesh, it's not our ears of flesh, it's not our mind of flesh but the renewed mind (Rm. 12).


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> No, "his eternal power and divine nature" (Rm. 1:20) sometimes called general revelation.
> 
> That's why we work slowly through God's word.  We treat it with reverence, it's THE word of God, it's His revelation of Himself, it is the Creator instructing the creation, it is God communicating to His people.  We must allow the Spirit into the conversation.  Why did Jesus speak in parables (Mat. 13)?  It's not our eyes of flesh, it's not our ears of flesh, it's not our mind of flesh but the renewed mind (Rm. 12).



Then how does God elect a person from a foreign nation? A person who only knows God's eternal power and divine nature. I person who has an excuse? 
How does one from a foreign nation learn about God's Law and God's grace?
Please don't say it's from "man."


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 11, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then how does God elect a person from a foreign nation? A person who only knows God's eternal power and divine nature. I person who has an excuse?
> How does one from a foreign nation learn about God's Law and God's grace?
> Please don't say it's from "man."



Why would God have more than one way to elect His people?

Art, did you read Romans 1?

"they are without excuse"

I'm trying to be patient, but if you aren't going to do anything to help yourself, I'm taking a break.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Why would God have more than one way to elect His people?
> 
> Art, did you read Romans 1?
> 
> ...



Well wait, I'll reread Romans 1. I remember it saying no one is without excuse. I don't understand why no one is without excuse if only some are elected. Perhaps Romans 1 will explain that.
"They know God yet stopped worshiping him and started worshiping Idols."

Romans 1:5 
Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and authority as apostles to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them, so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name.

Through Christ, NOW the apostles have the authority from God to tell the Gentiles everywhere so that they will believe and obey.
Confusing to me is the word "NOW."  Now the apostles have authority.
Before this I would assume Gentiles were granted salvation by election and "now" they are saved by hearing the "word" from authorized apostles.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2015)

Romans 1:8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.

I'm beginning to see as Hobbs that "all over the world" or "whole world" was as they knew it. I've seen old Jewish maps of Noah's time and the "world" wasn't that big. this might explain how all the Gentiles could be reached with the Gospel or how the "whole world" was flooded. Just a thought. I doubt the Roman's faith was being reported to the native Americans.

Romans 1:14
 14I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 

Teaching the Word to totally depraved foolish barbarians. I'll read between the lines and say only the "elected" foolish barbarians will have eyes to see and ear to hear.
Hopefully some of these people are of the Elect or Paul is just wasting his time.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

Salvation to everyone who believes;first to the Jew. Now this is confusing as there were Gentiles before the Jews. It appears Paul is speaking of his present time as if hearing the Gospel is the power of God that brings salvation.
First to the Jew and then the Gentile. Yet we know Gentiles and Jews heard the Word if not the Gospel long before the Cross.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2015)

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

This possibly could be to every Jew and Gentile in the literal world or the World as the Hebrews knew it. 
Regardless, the people are without excuse to not know God's eternal power and divine nature. God's evidence is within them.
What exactly does that mean? Excuse from what, believing in God?
How could they possibly believe and worship God if they were totally depraved lost sinners? How could they be without excuse if God hasn't opened their eyes and elected them?
They knew God but wouldn't worship him. 

Romans 1:23
And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

They "exchanged" the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things. 
They sure did a lot of exchanging. These people whomever they were, were not totally depraved pagans or barbarians.
They knew God and exchanged the truth for a lie. A totally depraved sinner could car less.

Again I can understand people in far away lands and islands knowing God by his creation and his divine powers. They received their ideals of morals and sin.
I don't understand how they can worship God with no knowledge of the Gospel. I don't understand how they can have every Law of Moses in their hearts. Yet they are without excuse to not know God. To not worship God.
How could they if God hasn't elected them? They are depraved.
Unless it was a more local "world," then they would know how to worship God. They would know not to stop worshiping God and to start worshiping idols. You'd almost need insider information(election) to do that.

Romans 1:28
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

God couldn't give depraved sinners a depraved mind. These people did not think it worthwhile to retain their knowledge of God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2015)

Let's continue it Romans 2;
Romans 2:1
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

There is a good lesson in that verse.

Let's throw this verse in about people who can't follow the Law. There IS a way out, thankfully.

1 Corinthians 6:11
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Amen for the "washing' as we are all equally guilty.

I've read Romans 1 many times and I get a little more Grace out of it each time I read it. 
This time I was studying it in relation to God electing Gentiles. I must say I'll need more study to understand it in that respect. Things like the Gospel being taught first to the Jew and then the Gentile and the gospel being the power of God that brings salvation. If there never was a difference between the Jew and Gentile in regards to salvation, then I'll need more study.


----------



## Israel (Apr 11, 2015)

This has been in my heart lately:

"It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

"Comes to me..."

I do not see any equivocation there. An inevitability is spoken. And so I must, and am very much compelled to ask of myself, "If I have indeed "come to Jesus"...what has been the outworking of this in experience? Do I have anything I can see that testifies to this truth?"


Do you?

Because it is true, it is to be known.
I know what I think I see of it...but, does anyone else have anything?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2015)

Israel said:


> This has been in my heart lately:
> 
> "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
> 
> ...



John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.

Everyone?

It would be interesting to hear comments on how the Holy Spirit drew people to God before he was sent as the Comforter at the ascension of Jesus.

Before Jesus came to the earth God had to teach people that Jesus would one day come and die for their sins. This was before Paul teaching Gentiles or the Comforter. 
After this calling, God elected them. Even Hindus. Nothing changed.
Universal Election. Election isn't based on anything man does.  God wouldn't have any better reason to elect a Jew than to elect a Hindu.
Election is and never was based on anything the Jew or the Hindu ever did.
Both are sinners and need Jesus for salvation/election.

God didn't choose Abraham for his merits. God didn't choose Israel for their merits. God didn't choose Mary mother of Jesus on her merits. God is no respecter of man.
There is nor never has been any chance of the created changing or messing with the Creator's plan.
It appears everything is right on schedule.


----------



## Israel (Apr 11, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> John 6:45
> It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
> 
> Everyone?
> ...



Everyone who has heard, and learned...comes.

One might presume an exclusion could be implied...but since it is not mentioned, therefore it would be a presumption. 

However, in the sheep and goats (but not only), no presumption is needed...for "some will enter", some won't. One could also consider the narrow vs the broad way, which not only has a distinction of quality, but also of quantity. The few vs the many.

Sobering.

So many created for the few to find their way home.

More sobering.

And if I am to find the way home safely, I dare not decide of myself "who is who". At the least, that is what I see of Jesus.

And then I ask myself..."But how do I know this...of Jesus?"

Because I cannot deny, despite all the failings so present in myself of myself...he is the only one I have ever met who submitted to such a breaking open of himself...and so deeply...that allows, even someone like me...to see myself in Him. Everyone else (and I mean no disrespect to any) has always had a palpable border, a place I could discover the limits of their distinction to me. But Jesus? Even when at my most craven self, willing to sell out the whole of creation to my own smallest advantage...he takes me aside and says "yes, I know something of that temptation...would you like to see where I also had to deal with it? See, we are not as unlike as you think. And I am astounded to see the one who refuses to "disown" me...even when I have , and would disown what I think I should be.
The terror of the sin sickness, like most any sickness...is its catchiness. And so with the abandonment by others comes the reality of isolation, and the abyss of the alone. But, someone has come to me...even, there...especially there, precisely...there. Who is like our God?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 11, 2015)

Art, I put it all together so I could better handle it with my meager skills.

Well wait, I'll reread Romans 1. I remember it saying no one is without excuse. I don't understand why no one is without excuse if only some are elected. Perhaps Romans 1 will explain that.
_________________
Hey Art, I think you are unintentionally using a double negative “no one is without excuse” means everyone has an excuse.  The passage says “they are without excuse”.
___________________
"They know God yet stopped worshiping him and started worshiping Idols."__________________
Back up a second, “...called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son

The gospel of God concerning His Son was promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures … that's some of the stuff we were talking about earlier.
___________________
Romans 1:5 
Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and authority as apostles to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them, so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name.

Through Christ, NOW the apostles have the authority from God to tell the Gentiles everywhere so that they will believe and obey.
Confusing to me is the word "NOW." Now the apostles have authority.
Before this I would assume Gentiles were granted salvation by election and "now" they are saved by hearing the "word" from authorized apostles. 
____________________
I recall you saying to me earlier “Please don’t tell me it’s by “men””.  So I didn’t go that far.

Look at it like this:
Salvation if by grace alone, that means that God first “regenerates” a person.  Then He provides a new heart (one that understands spiritual things).  That’s first in logical order (so that we can understand it); it may happen at the same time for all I know; or there may be occasions when it is spread out in time, but regeneration, the heart that can receive things of God has to be up front.  Since God decided that was going to happen before He Created anything, you could say it happened in eternity past so time or chronological order is irrelevant, but we have to have things so we can understand and talk about them.

Anyway, that’s what Paul is talking about.  Scattered around among the Gentiles are a bunch of people whom God has called (regenerated), or is about to, and He has told Paul, and his buddies, to go fill them in on what this deal is all about.  Paul doesn’t have the power to save, but through the Holy Spirit, he has to power to teach.
____________________________

Romans 1:8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.

I'm beginning to see as Hobbs that "all over the world" or "whole world" was as they knew it. I've seen old Jewish maps of Noah's time and the "world" wasn't that big. this might explain how all the Gentiles could be reached with the Gospel or how the "whole world" was flooded. Just a thought. I doubt the Roman's faith was being reported to the native Americans.
_____________________
In this case … I think it’s an expression like “everybody’s talking about it”
__________________
Romans 1:14
14I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 

Teaching the Word to totally depraved foolish barbarians. I'll read between the lines and say only the "elected" foolish barbarians will have eyes to see and ear to hear.
________________________
Your dead on target with that shot between the lines.
_______________________
Hopefully some of these people are of the Elect or Paul is just wasting his time.____________________
Paul is, as he says elsewhere, following the Spirit.  He’s not wasting his time.
______________________
Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

Salvation to everyone who believes;first to the Jew. Now this is confusing as there were Gentiles before the Jews. It appears Paul is speaking of his present time as if hearing the Gospel is the power of God that brings salvation.
First to the Jew and then the Gentile. Yet we know Gentiles and Jews heard the Word if not the Gospel long before the Cross. 
_____________________
Elsewhere Paul talks about the advantage the Jews have because it has been through them that God has introduced His written Law into the world.  We, and Paul, know that it went beyond them (God tells us that is His plan several times in the OT) by the gentiles who had a wonderful relationship with God from way back (Ruth, etc.), but it was the Jews that God chose as a conduit for the Law.  That’s what he means by first, not first in time right now, today, or that day.
___________________
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

This possibly could be to every Jew and Gentile in the literal world or the World as the Hebrews knew it. 
Regardless, the people are without excuse to not know God's eternal power and divine nature. God's evidence is within them.
_______________
I don’t think it’s within them, in the same sense as the indwelling Spirit, or God’s Law written on the heart.  He’s talking about the natural world (mountains, rivers, trees, stars, the seasons, and how they all work together).
_______________________
What exactly does that mean? Excuse from what, believing in God?
How could they possibly believe and worship God if they were totally depraved lost sinners? How could they be without excuse if God hasn't opened their eyes and elected them?
They knew God but wouldn't worship him.
______________________
Romans: 9:14 forward to the end of the chapter.
I had to chew on that one for a long time before He opened it up to me.
__________________ 

Romans 1:23
And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

They "exchanged" the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things. 
They sure did a lot of exchanging. These people whomever they were, were not totally depraved pagans or barbarians.
__________________________
Oh yes, that’s exactly who he’s talking about.  Pagans have no excuse.  Work on Romans 9; pray for the Spirit to guide you; and don’t miss the “remnant”.
_____________________
They knew God and exchanged the truth for a lie. A totally depraved sinner could car less.

Again I can understand people in far away lands and islands knowing God by his
creation and his divine powers. They received their ideals of morals and sin.
I don't understand how they can worship God with no knowledge of the Gospel. I don't understand how they can have every Law of Moses in their hearts. Yet they are without excuse to not know God. To not worship God.
How could they if God hasn't elected them? They are depraved.
Unless it was a more local "world," then they would know how to worship God. They would know not to stop worshiping God and to start worshiping idols. You'd almost need insider information(election) to do that.
________________________
Bingo, you got it (Romans 2:14-16
_________________


Romans 1:28
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

God couldn't give depraved sinners a depraved mind. These people did not think it worthwhile to retain their knowledge of God.
______________________
OK, you’ve worn me out again.
My suggestion to you is start right back where you started this study and do it again, you may be surprised what the Spirit reveals that wasn’t there before.  Caution: you may also put some of your own in.  That’s a big CAUTION.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2015)

Natural Law in our hearts vs. the Law of Moses.

If natural law is good enough for the Gentiles then it's good enough for the Jews.  Neither law has anything to do regarding salvation.
God didn't change the law of nature when he gave the Jews the Law of Moses.
To me personally the Law of Moses and Torah Laws are more involved than the Law of Nature. I can't see God expecting every Gentile in every far off land keeping Torah. I don't believe this is the Law in their heart. It's just too involved. Heck even Gentiles who have grown up knowing Torah Laws don't keep them. 
Therefor I still see Torah as being more specific and towards the Jews.
I have trouble denying this. It's has nothing to do with election or salvation.

Yet people are quick to spout off Paul's lists of sins that will keep one out of the Kingdom. As if someone could work their way into the Kingdom.
If the drunkard glutton is elected, he has salvation. 
God didn't choose me or the drunkard glutton based on our personal sins.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Art, I put it all together so I could better handle it with my meager skills.
> 
> Well wait, I'll reread Romans 1. I remember it saying no one is without excuse. I don't understand why no one is without excuse if only some are elected. Perhaps Romans 1 will explain that.
> _________________
> ...



I see the double negative. Now with the correction "they are without excuse." They know God by his creation and divine power. They should continue to worship God. They didn't and exchange God for Idols. 
Every person knows God and is expected to worship him.
How can a totally depraved person do this? He can't therefore this group has to be believers. You can't exchange God for Idols if you never worshiped God.

I understand the Son being promised and Old Testament saints believing in the Son this way. But only Old Testament saints who've heard of this promise verbally or written. People all over the world would not know this information. Unless God reveals it to each individual upon their election. I've heard some people say they were elected and felt the presence of the Holy Spirit but were Hindu and didn't know what it was until someone brought them scripture. Maybe that's how they acquire salvation through the Son.

Through Christ, NOW the apostles have the authority from God to tell the Gentiles everywhere so that they will believe and obey.
The Son was known and promised in the Old Testament. Now the apostles had the authority to tell the Gentiles.
God was already electing Gentiles from around the world long before they heard of the "promise." 
I'm just curious as to how you see them hearing of this after their election? Did God tell them the same way he placed the Law in their hearts. They are without excuse to know God and worship God.

I agree about God's only way to salvation. I'd hate to think someone's salvation was based on me or any man telling them. I'll leave Universal Election up to God.
Paul was telling these future "electorates" about God and Jesus. Unless they already believed in God but hadn't heard of Jesus. In a local world they would know of the God of Abraham by that name but possibly hadn't heard of Jesus. Maybe Paul was witnessing to them.
Either way though their salvation wasn't dependent on Paul or any man's evangelical work.


In this case … I think it’s an expression like “everybody’s talking about it”
I agree the "world" means many things. Abraham's seed will inherit the "word."

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

We do know that God saved Gentiles first, Abraham was a Gentile. So was Adam, Noah, and Shem.
This verse requires more study. I think it's deeper than your explanation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

I'll continue here;
___________________
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

This possibly could be to every Jew and Gentile in the literal world or the World as the Hebrews knew it.
Regardless, the people are without excuse to not know God's eternal power and divine nature. God's evidence is within them.
_______________
(quote)I don’t think it’s within them, in the same sense as the indwelling Spirit, or God’s Law written on the heart. He’s talking about the natural world (mountains, rivers, trees, stars, the seasons, and how they all work together).(quote)
_______________________
What exactly does that mean? Excuse from what, believing in God?
How could they possibly believe and worship God if they were totally depraved lost sinners? How could they be without excuse if God hasn't opened their eyes and elected them?
They knew God but wouldn't worship him.

They are without excuse. It's in them as God's Law of the Heart is in every one. Otherwise they wouldn't be without excuse.
We must use this verse as the chapter continues. They knew God but exchanged worshiping God for Idols. If it as you say then these people were not totally depraved. They had to have the Law in their hearts in order to worship God. They were without excuse. They exchanged God for Idols. This verse makes the reader aware these people knew God. It's not a vague group that has never heard of God.
It's not a group of present idol worshipers. It's a group that although they knew God they exchanged the truth for a lie.
I can't see this a group on a small Pacific Island. This group knew God, was worshiping God, and exchanged God for idols.
He turned them over to a depraved mind, they couldn't have been too depraved already for God to turn over to a depraved mind. They were already God worshipers who traded the truth for a lie.
God couldn't give depraved sinners a depraved mind. These people did not think it worthwhile to retain their knowledge of God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

I understand the election concept in Romans 9. I don't fully understand the "without excuse," wrath," and "judgement" that goes with election.

I would assume this is my personal problem and must work to understand. It may lead me to a belief in Universal election and or salvation. Jesus died for the whole world. Salvation for all.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I understand the election concept in Romans 9. I don't fully understand the "without excuse," wrath," and "judgement" that goes with election.
> 
> I would assume this is my personal problem and must work to understand. It may lead me to a belief in Universal election and or salvation. Jesus died for the whole world. Salvation for all.



If we take away from the equation "irresistible grace", would it not be true that Jesus died for all, or His death was sufficient for everyone, yet some cling to the flesh and don't succumb to the Spirit?

 I admittedly don't know Gods process of determining those that will or will not be saved , other than it comes by faith, and faith by hearing the word of God. What I do know is that universal salvation is unbiblical.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 12, 2015)

#91
I see the double negative. Now with the correction "they are without excuse." They know God by his creation and divine power. They should continue to worship God. They didn't and exchange God for Idols. 
Every person knows God and is expected to worship him.
How can a totally depraved person do this? He can't therefore this group has to be believers. You can't exchange God for Idols if you never worshiped God.

You’re kinda hung up on that word “exchanged”; I can see why, it’s not a normal meaning for us.  I checked 28 translations and paraphrases; it was about 30% “exchanged”, 40% “changed”, with 2 or 3 “bartered” and a couple of “instead of”.  Strong’s is “to make different”.

My thinking is based in my belief in God’s providence (whatever happens is subject to God’s control), and it comes out somewhat like this: fallen man’s condition is depraved; all men are aware of God by His creation around them and His power to control it; in his fallen condition man will refuse to give God His do recognition because they are self-centered not God-centered, unless God regenerates their fallen condition (gives them a new heart).

I understand the Son being promised and Old Testament saints believing in the Son this way. But only Old Testament saints who've heard of this promise verbally or written. People all over the world would not know this information. Unless God reveals it to each individual upon their election. I've heard some people say they were elected and felt the presence of the Holy Spirit but were Hindu and didn't know what it was until someone brought them scripture. Maybe that's how they acquire salvation through the Son.

Isn’t this what is explained in Rm 2:14-16?


Through Christ, NOW the apostles have the authority from God to tell the Gentiles everywhere so that they will believe and obey.
The Son was known and promised in the Old Testament. Now the apostles had the authority to tell the Gentiles.
God was already electing Gentiles from around the world long before they heard of the "promise." 
I'm just curious as to how you see them hearing of this after their election? Did God tell them the same way he placed the Law in their hearts. They are without excuse to know God and worship God.

God provides what is needed for His people to be obedient.  Look at the feeding of the 5000 and Peter walking on the water.  Jesus told Philip (I think) to feed the people, then He provided all that was required to achieve the task, same thing with Peter.  If those folks you refer to need to know about the “promise”, God will supply that knowledge, same with you, same with me, same with all of His people.
Those refered to in Rm 2:14-16 didn’t necessarily need to know about the “promise”.  You and I probably do.

I agree about God's only way to salvation. I'd hate to think someone's salvation was based on me or any man telling them. I'll leave Universal Election up to God.
Paul was telling these future "electorates" about God and Jesus. Unless they already believed in God but hadn't heard of Jesus. In a local world they would know of the God of Abraham by that name but possibly hadn't heard of Jesus. Maybe Paul was witnessing to them.
Either way though their salvation wasn't dependent on Paul or any man's evangelical work.


In this case … I think it’s an expression like “everybody’s talking about it”
I agree the "world" means many things. Abraham's seed will inherit the "word."

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

We do know that God saved Gentiles first, Abraham was a Gentile. So was Adam, Noah, and Shem.
This verse requires more study. I think it's deeper than your explanation. 

Could be … I’m coming from Rm 3:1-4.

Also, Paul sometimes, I think several times, uses the word “salvation” not to refer to regeneration alone, God’s initial act of grace in the sinner, but to refer to the whole process, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and perhaps glorification.  I think that Rm. 1:16 is one of those cases.

#92
I'll continue here;
___________________
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

This possibly could be to every Jew and Gentile in the literal world or the World as the Hebrews knew it.
Regardless, the people are without excuse to not know God's eternal power and divine nature. God's evidence is within them.
_______________
(quote)I don’t think it’s within them, in the same sense as the indwelling Spirit, or God’s Law written on the heart. He’s talking about the natural world (mountains, rivers, trees, stars, the seasons, and how they all work together).(quote)

Down to here we are fine


What exactly does that mean? Excuse from what, believing in God?
How could they possibly believe and worship God if they were totally depraved lost sinners? How could they be without excuse if God hasn't opened their eyes and elected them?
They knew God but wouldn't worship him.

They are without excuse. It's in them as God's Law of the Heart is in every one. Otherwise they wouldn't be without excuse.

We must use this verse as the chapter continues. They knew God but exchanged worshiping God for Idols. If it as you say then these people were not totally depraved. They had to have the Law in their hearts in order to worship God. They were without excuse. They exchanged God for Idols. This verse makes the reader aware these people knew God. It's not a vague group that has never heard of God.
It's not a group of present idol worshipers. It's a group that although they knew God they exchanged the truth for a lie.
I can't see this a group on a small Pacific Island. This group knew God, was worshiping God, and exchanged God for idols.
He turned them over to a depraved mind, they couldn't have been too depraved already for God to turn over to a depraved mind. They were already God worshipers who traded the truth for a lie.
God couldn't give depraved sinners a depraved mind. These people did not think it worthwhile to retain their knowledge of God. 

Rom 9:20  But 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?" 

Remember me saying that I had to chew on this whole concept a long time before He opened it up to me.  I don’t know, but I think the God wants us in a place of deep subjective humility before He makes it clear.  Patience and waiting on God is probably the only advise I have.
Maybe taking a look at what I wrote above about “exchange” will help, but, as with all things, it’s in His control.

#93
I understand the election concept in Romans 9. I don't fully understand the "without excuse," wrath," and "judgement" that goes with election.

I would assume this is my personal problem and must work to understand. It may lead me to a belief in Universal election and or salvation. Jesus died for the whole world. Salvation for all.

Your probably right on the first part but I doubt that Scripture and Spirit will lead you to Universalism.

I like the way you use the phrase "What exactly does that mean".
If we expect the answer to be provided immediately, either by the Spirit or someone Spirit sent, we will fall for anything, but if we are always alert for the answer from whatever source God chooses to use, it will usually come.  In the process He teaches us to recognize those answers that are from Him and those that are not.  There is an amazing amount of material about false teaching in Scripture for good reason.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> If we take away from the equation "irresistible grace", would it not be true that Jesus died for all, or His death was sufficient for everyone, yet some cling to the flesh and don't succumb to the Spirit?
> 
> I admittedly don't know Gods process of determining those that will or will not be saved , other than it comes by faith, and faith by hearing the word of God. What I do know is that universal salvation is unbiblical.



Do you believe in Universal Election? God electing Hindus or Pacific Islanders who never heard the Word of God?
If God doesn't elect based on anything man does or knows then God wouldn't favor one man over another. He wouldn't offer salvation based on being a Jew or a Gentile.
He wouldn't offer salvation to just those in the world as known in biblical days. He would elect any and all from around the world as we know it, Hindus, Pagans, depraved people, righteous Buddhist monks, Torah keeping Jews, and on and on.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> #91
> 
> You’re kinda hung up on that word “exchanged”; I can see why, it’s not a normal meaning for us.  I checked 28 translations and paraphrases; it was about 30% “exchanged”, 40% “changed”, with 2 or 3 “bartered” and a couple of “instead of”.  Strong’s is “to make different”.
> 
> ...



How can totally depraved people be without excuse? If it takes God to bring one to salvation, how come that isn't an excuse? When you see someone who is a lost sinner worshiping an idol, do you say; hey you are without excuse or do you say; you'll continue to do that until God opens your eyes. Then you'll be a child of God  through election.

You can't have it both ways. Either we are without excuse to worship idols or we can worship idols until God elects us.
God is no respecter of man. Idol worshiper or Atheist makes no difference to God. God will elect whom ever is his out of any group.

Unless we are without excuse. If we aren't totally depraved. If we all should worship Jesus, elected or not elected. I believe God wants everyone to worship him, elected or not elected. If you say only elected Christians can worship God, then the group and it was a whole group, in Romans 1 were initially worshiping God.
You can use "change," "traded," "exchanged," or what ever word you want to use but depraved idol worshiping sinners who were never Christians are no concern of God to make depraved. He'll remove his elect before depraving the group.
God is no respecter of man. He'll elect those that are his.

Now if this group, and it was a whole group, change the truth for a lie. They "traded" their worship of God for idols.
They "changed" their worship of God for idols. 
They traded the truth for a lie.
Otherwise God  would see them no different form all of the other thousands of totally depraved non-elected sinners. 

Once elected though and in the process of worshiping God, one "trades" this truth for a lie, God will deliver wrath. Depending on the severity such as giving up God for idols he will turn you over to a depraved mind.
Once again they had to be in the process of knowing and worshiping God in order to be turned over to a depraved mind.
God isn't in the process of turning depraved people into depraved people for that too is a double negative.

If you read on after they "changed" from God worship to idol worship, they exchanged, changed, or traded the type of sex partners they originally had. They abandoned one type of sex for another. Lots of "exchanges' or "trades." To abandon one type for another one would have to be doing it.
There are many "changes" or "trades" in Romans 1.
These formally righteous people were turned over to a reprobate mind. They went from good to bad being filled with evil doings. Slanderers, gossipers, greedy, envious people without understand, untrustworthy.

Romans 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Again these weren't totally deprave pagans. They knew God's Judgement and didn't care.  Totally depraved sinners don't know better and could never understand God's Judgement. To them it's all silly rubbish. 
The very next verse tells us we are just like this group if we pass judgement.

Romans 2:1
Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 

I wonder if God ever re-elected one of those individuals in Romans 1 that "traded" the truth for a lie?
The one's he turned into reprobates. The ones who had no excuse.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you believe in Universal Election? God electing Hindus or Pacific Islanders who never heard the Word of God?
> If God doesn't elect based on anything man does or knows then God wouldn't favor one man over another. He wouldn't offer salvation based on being a Jew or a Gentile.
> He wouldn't offer salvation to just those in the world as known in biblical days. He would elect any and all from around the world as we know it, Hindus, Pagans, depraved people, righteous Buddhist monks, Torah keeping Jews, and on and on.



What I believe is salvation as eternal life was never offered to anyone until Christ returned. He ascended with the OT saints, then brought them back, raised the dead in Christ which would have been the ones that died from His ascension to His return. Then with the ones that were left alive they were all joined together with Christ in the "air" or spirit as one body in Christ that makes up the Church which will never end.

 From that moment on salvation is like this:  17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

From a friend of mine Charles Meek explains it like this: 

COMPLETED REDEMPTION
 By Charles S. Meek 

“Christ will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:28)

There is a sense in the New Testament that Christ’s work, even our redemption, was not quite complete at the cross.

Christ’s death on the cross paid the penalty for our sins (Romans 8:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Hebrews 9:15-22). His resurrection provides our hope for eternal life (1 Corinthians 15:1-2; 2 Timothy 1:10; etc.). But, HIS PAROUSIA SEALED OUR SALVATION: Mark 10:29-30; Luke 21:28; Romans 8:18-23 [note “mello” in the Greek, meaning “about to”]; 13:11; 1 Corinthians 15:52b; Ephesians 1:7-14; 4:30; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Hebrews 1:14 [“mello”]; 9:26-28; 1 Peter 1:3-21; 5:4; Revelation 11:19; 12:10; 15:8.

If you look up each of those passages, you will see that the Bible uses certain terminology about what was about to happen to LIVING, first-century believers, as related to their salvation—at Christ’s Second Coming (Greek “Parousia,” that is “presence”). These texts use such terminology as: salvation, day of redemption, adoption as sons, crown of glory, will be changed, eternal life, caught up with Christ, sanctuary opened.

Actually, the Bible speaks of three elements of the timing of our salvation: (1) at the cross, (2) at the point of our belief, and (3) at the Parousia. This is acknowledged even by futurists, but they miss the timing of the Parousia. This is a gross error given over 100 imminence passages in the New Testament!

Those who are waiting for a future second coming, though they may be imbued with a firm assurance that God is not slack concerning his promises, must nonetheless accept that Christ’s work toward their salvation is not yet complete! Only with the understanding that Christ came in finality in AD 70, can we be biblically assured that his work of salvation IS COMPLETE. This is glorious good news for Christians—a source and confirmation of our HOPE.

We could call this the COMPLETED REDEMPTION. So while our salvation was secured and guaranteed at the cross, it was completed at the Second Coming. An analogy might be a dying patient receiving a life saving injection. The injection from the needle guarantees that the patient is spared (the cross), but it takes a little while for the medicine to work inside the body to kill the infection (the Parousia). Christ’s work of redemption was completed in AD 70 when he returned in judgment to wash away the visible fabric of the Old Covenant.

At the Parousia, the old pre-Christ world of shadows and prophecies, the things which were “imperfect” and “in part” (Daniel 9:24-27; 1 Corinthians 13:8-12; etc.), were brought to completion. Unlike the futurist paradigm in which the Christian age is but a comma, Covenant Eschatology confirms Christ as completely triumphant—victorious even in the midst of sin.

The passages about imminent salvation, in part, hold a promise specifically for the first-century Christians of being saved in an earthly sense from persecution and tribulation—similar to salvation of the Jews from specific instances of worldly bondage in the Old Testament (such as their escape from Egypt or from Babylonian captivity per Exodus 14:13; Isaiah 41:14; 56:1). But there is also the definite sense that the Parousia sealed, that is finalized, the personal salvation of every Christian.

The salvation from worldly bondage by God in the Old Testament foreshadowed the ultimate salvation from the spiritual bondage of sin, death, and the Law brought by the Messiah (Isaiah 25:8-9; Hosea 13:14; Romans 11:25-27; 1 Corinthians 15:26). This salvation was initiated at the cross, but was not quite finished. The Exodus from Egypt and the forty-year period of wandering in the wilderness, foreshadowed the forty-year transition period of the first century, until full deliverance in AD 70.

This is a remarkable parallel that the reader should not miss. The Hebrew children escaped the worldly bondage of slavery in Egypt at the Exodus, but they did not reach their new home for forty years, after much trial and tribulation. In the first century, believers received their promised escape from spiritual bondage at the cross, but would enter their new spiritual dwelling place—the New Jerusalem/New Heaven and Earth (Revelation 7, 21)—about forty years later, after much trial and tribulation!

The Christian’s confidence rests primarily in Christ’s finished work on the cross (John 19:30). But the Bible also teaches that our hope rests in Christ’s Parousia—his effectual divine presence in AD 70 in fulfillment of all the eschatological promises. Christians seem to have inseparably tied their hope to a future Second Coming. For the very earliest Christians, it was rightly described by the New Testament writers as the “blessed hope”: 1 Thessalonians 5:4-8; Titus 2:13; 1 Peter 1:13; 1 John 3:2-3. For us today, that hope has been confirmed.
 (from CHRISTIAN HOPE THROUGH FULFILLED PROPHECY by Charles Meek)


----------



## Israel (Apr 12, 2015)

It is not good for the man to be alone. 
And yet...what does God do to make man "not alone"?
Does he make another completely unique individual?
Does he gather more dust?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> What I believe is salvation as eternal life was never offered to anyone until Christ returned. He ascended with the OT saints, then brought them back, raised the dead in Christ which would have been the ones that died from His ascension to His return. Then with the ones that were left alive they were all joined together with Christ in the "air" or spirit as one body in Christ that makes up the Church which will never end.
> 
> From that moment on salvation is like this:  17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.
> 
> ...


I understand this concept and Meeks presents it very well. It basically moves salvation from the Cross to the Parousia.
The Cross was the atonement and the Parousia was fulfillment. 

But as it stands right now can God elect someone who has never heard the Word of God or the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Is the Law written in our heart known by every Gentile in far away lands and small islands around the world? Do these same Gentiles know that breaking these laws would bring God's judgment?  

Romans 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

How would a depraved Gentile far away in the Pacific know this? First he is without excuse because he knows God's law and he also knows God's Judgement for not following this Law.

You mentioned Old Testament saints, what made them saints?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

Romans 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Now I'm a little confused. Paul just talked about a group who committed a list of sins. He presented another list of sins that would keep one out of the Kingdom in Corinthians.  
I thought the Law was to be our tutor to show us the importance of needing Jesus. If sinning or not sinning has no bearing on whom God elects and sinning or not sinning has no bearing on Grace, why did Paul say that the group of sinners know the judgement of God and they that commit such things are worthy of death?
Then he tells us that if we judge these folks, we are equally guilty because we are all sinners. Is Paul trying to set us up to teach us about grace?

He does this in Corinthians too. He gives a list of sins that will keep one out of the Kingdom and then says "and such were you, but you were washed.

Sins will keep us out of the Kingdom unless we are washed. We are all equally as guilty. Picture this small island of sinners. They were born into sin. They are totally depraved. None are worthy of salvation. None will enter the Kingdom. They never officially knew God.
Down comes God and says; You and you and you, I'm saving; your sins are washed. You can now enter the Kingdom. It never really was about their actions, works, or abilities. It was God electing whom ever he desired from the beginning of time. Before creation.

Picture the same island of sinners. None are worthy, All will surely die. God teaches the whole group the Gospel, the Good News of his Son. That if they believe, they shall live forever. Some believe and are given salvation. It never was about their ability to sin or not sin. Why did some believe and others didn't?

Picture a third island. God swoops down and says I know ya'll know good from bad but I'm going to give you a whole bunch of Laws. Laws about diet, clothing, sleeping with the same sex, temple rules, sacrifice rules, sabbath keeping, how to worship, how to pray, laws that women can't preach, and on and on and on.
He gives them so many laws that they are totally unable to keep them all. No matter how hard they try. 
Then he tells them not to worry because he knew they could never keep all of those Laws. That he had always had a plan and he lets them in on it. One day in the future I'll send y'all a savior. 
If you believe I'm gonna do this I'll save you even before he gets here. You've just got to have faith that I'll send in this Messiah. Some believe and some don't based on faith in God. 
Again there ability to keep Torah never mattered. God save them based on their faith he would do as promised. He didn't base salvation on their ability to keep Torah.

In the end it looks like Law keeping was never the answer to salvation. That it's always been about grace. Paul proved this by giving us huge lists of sins that would keep one out of the Kingdom unless we are washed.  

Yet people are quick to show Paul's sins lists as why certain sinners aren't worthy of the Kingdom. They are more confused than me.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> How can totally depraved people be without excuse? If it takes God to bring one to salvation, how come that isn't an excuse? When you see someone who is a lost sinner worshiping an idol, do you say; hey you are without excuse or do you say; you'll continue to do that until God opens your eyes. Then you'll be a child of God  through election.
> 
> You can't have it both ways. Either we are without excuse to worship idols or we can worship idols until God elects us.
> God is no respecter of man. Idol worshiper or Atheist makes no difference to God. God will elect whom ever is his out of any group.
> ...



I have again worked through this passage with emphasis on vss. 18-25.  I noted that in verse 19 the phrase that I am accustomed to reading as “to them” or sometimes “among them” is also translated “within them”; which would open the possibility, perhaps probability, that the passage indicates that general revelation includes more than the external element (I think I have been lax in my studies).  I will be conscious of that oversight in future study.  Perhaps there is confirmation elsewhere which I also missed.

Note: General revelation is not God's Law written on the heart.

However, I received no indication that the people who are the subject of the passage had at any time in their past or present exercised any worship of, or overt recognition of, God; nor do I see an inference of that from the word “exchanged”; that word most naturally meaning being that they ignored the general revelation in favor of objects of worship of their own invention.  Obviously, that in no way indicates that their spiritual condition is permanent.  We must always be aware that Gods plan for the disposition of individual souls (past, present, or future), is not our concern.  I have long noted that in the NT epistles there is a dominant assumption of salvation for all those being addressed.


“How can totally depraved people be without excuse? If it takes God to bring one to salvation, how come that isn't an excuse?”
Job:39:1-42:6 (a personal favorite)
Isaiah 40
Romans 9


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 12, 2015)

Israel said:


> It is not good for the man to be alone.
> And yet...what does God do to make man "not alone"?
> Does he make another completely unique individual?
> Does he gather more dust?


I, yet not I.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I have again worked through this passage with emphasis on vss. 18-25.  I noted that in verse 19 the phrase that I am accustomed to reading as “to them” or sometimes “among them” is also translated “within them”; which would open the possibility, perhaps probability, that the passage indicates that general revelation includes more than the external element (I think I have been lax in my studies).  I will be conscious of that oversight in future study.  Perhaps there is confirmation elsewhere which I also missed.
> 
> Note: General revelation is not God's Law written on the heart.
> 
> ...



thanks, I'll study those passages and verses.
In regards to Romans 1; if they were already worshiping idols why were they just now being judged? If they were already Pagans. How did God make depraved people depraved? Why would he care what depraved people do? They are already lost sinners. They are already doomed. They are already going to receive God's judgment. They were not going to receive everlasting life anyway. They were already on their way to He!!. Unless God elects them. God could have elected any one of those in Romans 1 if they were depraved and of the elect..

No matter how you look at it if these were already Pagans, they were not God's people. God doesn't make Hindus reprobates. God doesn't make Atheists  reprobates. 
People like pagans and Hindus haven't traded the truth for a lie as they never knew God. People around the world worship idols. God hasn't turned them over to a reprobate mind.
These people knew God and they changed. I guess you don't believe they abandon hetero sex for gay sex either?
The Bible says;
Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
I'm just showing more exchanging and abandoning a previous way of doing something.

I don't understand why so many people see this group as Pagan homosexual idol worshipers from the beginning. The world is full of people like this and they are already evil. The whole world is evil. Every lost sinner is doomed.
God doesn't cast deprave people like this with a reprobate mind. 
He does it to a group of formerly God believing heterosexuals who traded the truth for a lie.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I understand this concept and Meeks presents it very well. It basically moves salvation from the Cross to the Parousia.
> The Cross was the atonement and the Parousia was fulfillment.
> 
> But as it stands right now can God elect someone who has never heard the Word of God or the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
> ...



God can do anything but lie.

They followed the commandments and drew near at the atonements. But they were not saved with eternal salvation (life) until the marriage of the bride groom.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> God can do anything but lie.
> 
> They followed the commandments and drew near at the atonements. But they were not saved with eternal salvation (life) until the marriage of the bride groom.



You think the Old Testament saints were offered future 
salvation based on following commandments?

What about the election of Gentiles from around the world?
Did they follow commandments? When people live far away, I don't understand the Law in their hearts being different from knowing God by creation or the Law of Moses.

It suddenly looks like if we don't consider election, God is offering future salvation to different people of different times differently. Jews one way, local Gentiles who have heard the Gospel another way, and far away Gentiles by some mysterious divine intervention of presenting the Law spiritually. 

Yet salvation isn't based on anything we do, it's all from grace. God is no respecter of men. Future salvation is based on future grace. Not really in the future for the Creator but creation. At some point in the past the Cross and Parousia were in some elected or saints future. I would think their salvation came in the form of a future gift. But I don't know if they had to wait for the actual event to receive it. Where did their souls go? They didn't die, so they received everlasting life the minute they died a physical death. They received their salvation from eternal death way before the Cross or Parousia.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> People like pagans and Hindus haven't traded the truth for a lie as they never knew God.



Yes Art, they have.  That's the point of this passage.  That's why its called "general revelation", it's the revelation of God that is given to every living person, pagans, Hindus, and all.  Everybody is given "the things that have been made" and the internal ability to recognize God's "eternal power and divine nature" in those things.  (I've got to work on that internal ability part)

There is a saying that I don't like that says general revelation is sufficient to condemn but not sufficient to save.

Here I go again 
____________________
I just read you #106.  That's what happens when you start trying to get God to change to fit our understanding instead of trying to understand what He has revealed to us (not suggesting that we will get it all).  One change requires another until you can't keep track of them.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> You think the Old Testament saints were offered future
> salvation based on following commandments?
> 
> What about the election of Gentiles from around the world?
> ...



It's hard to gather information from the old covenant on Gentiles relationship to God, but the law written in their hearts refers to people that did good while ignorant of the law. Perhaps these people were too OT saints.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Yes Art, they have.  That's the point of this passage.  That's why its called "general revelation", it's the revelation of God that is given to every living person, pagans, Hindus, and all.  Everybody is given "the things that have been made" and the internal ability to recognize God's "eternal power and divine nature" in those things.  (I've got to work on that internal ability part)
> 
> There is a saying that I don't like that says general revelation is sufficient to condemn but not sufficient to save.



I can't fathom a whole country like India that have traded the truth of the God of Abraham for a lie. We know they have, God knows they have but they don't have any idea about the God of Abraham. Especially 500 years ago. 
Why would a whole country like India or Japan be presented "general revelation" and hardly any are elected from those nations? Why would God condemn a whole country and not elect some of them if election isn't based on doing something about this "general revelation?"

In regards to election, what purpose does this general revelation serve? If it can't bring one to salvation, it can't condemn.
What good is knowing God's eternal power and divine nature if it only condemns? 
Suddenly you are dividing Law. General revelation, Law of the Heart, and the Law of Moses. If God is no respecter of man, why did he make depraved sinners reprobate?
Is that even possible?

OK so the group in Romans 1 were homosexual Pagan idol worshipers. Why didn't God elect them?
They were without excuse. Excuse from what? To  worship and glorify God. Even if it was just a general revelation these idol worshipers had, they were still without excuse to worship God. God was requiring them to worship him. They decided not to. They exchange the truth for a lie. It really matters not whether they were elect or not. God required their worship. They were without excuse.
They weren't totally depraved. They knew enough about God by this "general revelation" to worship God instead of idols. God had partially opened their eyes by his "general revelation."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

I can't see  God condemning people based on general revelation, the Law of Moses, or the Law of the Heart if salvation isn't based on following these Laws. 
If salvation isn't based on anything man does then having a general revelation and still worshiping idols would not condemn. 
Wouldn't it take more than a general revelation to open the eyes of a totally depraved person? Either God fully opens ones eyes with election or the person isn't elected. Either the Law is totally provided to the heart or is isn't. God doesn't give just enough Law to hang oneself without  a plan for salvation. 
A person isn't half depraved by general revelation.
When God elects someone they receive the whole law in the form of salvation.
I guess general revelation offers half salvation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> It's hard to gather information from the old covenant on Gentiles relationship to God, but the law written in their hearts refers to people that did good while ignorant of the law. Perhaps these people were too OT saints.



Could you explain that a different way? When was the Law written on their hearts? Is this different from General Revelation? Is it something just Gentiles received?
How can one do good if ignorant of the Law? 
What did it matter if they did good? Salvation isn't based on works. That makes it seem like salvation was based on works before the Cross and Parousia and on grace after the Cross and Parousia.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Yes Art, they have.  That's the point of this passage.  That's why its called "general revelation", it's the revelation of God that is given to every living person, pagans, Hindus, and all.  Everybody is given "the things that have been made" and the internal ability to recognize God's "eternal power and divine nature" in those things.  (I've got to work on that internal ability part)
> 
> There is a saying that I don't like that says general revelation is sufficient to condemn but not sufficient to save.



They traded the truth for a lie was just trading a general revelation of God's eternal power and divine nature? Their only truth of God was a general revelation? How did that general revelation give them enough of the Holy Spirit to worship God?
They traded a general revelation for idol worship? What other choice did they have without the Holy Spirit fully opening their eyes? It would take more than a general revelation to make a depraved person worship God. He would need to be elected. Then and only then could he worship God. Then and only then could he be expected to quit sinning. Without a full eye opening experience, this isn't possible. It takes more than a general revelation.
They were turned into reprobates for not acting on a general revelation?  
They were born pagans, grew up pagans, and worshiped idols their whole lives and suddenly out of the blue they were made reprobates. Based on a general revelation they had always known. That was and had always been their only knowledge of God. That was the trade?
Why only this particular group? Why after half their evil life could they possibly become more evil? What did they suddenly do that made God angry?

Hint; they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

This is what they suddenly did that made God angry. Pagans would have already been doing this.


----------



## Israel (Apr 13, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I, yet not I.


Amen.
The one in whom I refuse to see myself in is always just and only me.
Yet, I am comes.
Who can stop Him?


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 13, 2015)

Fallen man is totally depraved (same as reprobate).

Totally depraved - does not mean that everything a person does is as bad as it could be.  It means that everything a person does is tainted, not holy, not acceptable to Holy God.  Only God can make a person acceptable to Himself.  A totally depraved person can not make himself holy, everything he does is tainted; holy is without taint, without spot, washed in the blood.  What did Jesus do?


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Could you explain that a different way? When was the Law written on their hearts? Is this different from General Revelation? Is it something just Gentiles received?
> How can one do good if ignorant of the Law?
> What did it matter if they did good? Salvation isn't based on works. That makes it seem like salvation was based on works before the Cross and Parousia and on grace after the Cross and Parousia.



 I truly have no idea what qualified the Old Covenant saints. Look at what scripture tells us seperated the rich man and Lazarus..is that it? I don't know, but their eternal salvation relied on faith in Christ. Were they set aside to hear the word and be given faith in His descent? I think most likely.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I truly have no idea what qualified the Old Covenant saints. Look at what scripture tells us seperated the rich man and Lazarus..is that it? I don't know, but their eternal salvation relied on faith in Christ. Were they set aside to hear the word and be given faith in His descent? I think most likely.



Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
It appears God elected the poor man and not the rich man. Coincidence? Salvation not based on works?
Abraham did give a way to salvation for the rich man's five brothers. Which wasn't "sit back and hopefully you'll be one of the lucky one's God elects. Because God only saves by grace alone and not based on your actions."


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 13, 2015)

Salvation is Golgotha. It is the ministry of Paul.
Baptism is being born again. It is the ministry of the Church.

The covenant of the law written on stone is a covenant based on judgement. The interplay--struggle here is the forming of relationship or faith in what God sees as just and what man thinks is just.  ( Think of Job and the lamentations for justice restored regards the old covenant.) The reason man has arguments here is because of the fall from grace.

The covenant of the law written on hearts by grace for Golgotha is a covenant based on love. There is no judgement in this relationship.  Faith in this case is above sensual pleasures... and  now spiritually foreign to the fall from grace --because of the perfect love of God ( grace) which now can be restored to the hearts of man. ( God's love now in us.)


Yet faith remains a struggle, it is the genesis of our works. It is not a struggle for works to agree or please God as our faith is directly informed by Him ( He is-- is He.) rather it is now a struggle to match His love and therefore our works are to trim our wicks to the glory of His will which is our in Christ.

These works are due for the cause of our salvation ( grace), they are for the effects of salvation. God is our savoir, our friend. We make errors in our struggle to love sometimes... sometimes to the extent that we return to the judgement relationship we were freed from. Lord have mercy on us.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
> It appears God elected the poor man and not the rich man. Coincidence? Salvation not based on works?
> Abraham did give a way to salvation for the rich man's five brothers. Which wasn't "sit back and hopefully you'll be one of the lucky one's God elects. Because God only saves by grace alone and not based on your actions."



I'm also reminded of Jonah. A Jewish man given the commandment to go to Nineveh and preach to them God's warning. Jonah tried like the dickens to get out of that task, he felt preaching God to gentiles was beneath him. 
 When he was forced to do it , the gentile dogs heeded Gods word and repented. This further infuriated Jonah's bigotry of the gentiles. 
 So, considering the gentiles of Nineveh repented to God's word, how much did the gentile nations know of God and the commandments? We don't get a very clear picture of this in the OT, IMO.  Which leads me to just speculate about the salvation of gentiles under the old covenant.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I'm also reminded of Jonah. A Jewish man given the commandment to go to Nineveh and preach to them God's warning. Jonah tried like the dickens to get out of that task, he felt preaching God to gentiles was beneath him.
> When he was forced to do it , the gentile dogs heeded Gods word and repented. This further infuriated Jonah's bigotry of the gentiles.
> So, considering the gentiles of Nineveh repented to God's word, how much did the gentile nations know of God and the commandments? We don't get a very clear picture of this in the OT, IMO.  Which leads me to just speculate about the salvation of gentiles under the old covenant.



Nothing is mentioned in this passage about repentance. It was about belief. They believed after hearing Jonah's message. God saved them from his destruction.

Is this about salvation or just the local destruction of Nineveh? If salvation, was the whole city elected?
If so then it was by faith.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Nothing is mentioned in this passage about repentance. It was about belief. They believed after hearing Jonah's message. God saved them from his destruction.
> 
> Is this about salvation or just the local destruction of Nineveh? If salvation, was the whole city elected?
> If so then it was by faith.



You're right it says nothing of repentance, but it demonstrates repentance when they turn from their evil ways.
 God saved them from a coming destruction...Still not eternal salvation, but it does show God interacting with gentiles, although through a Jew. And God showed mercy on them for their works and faith.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> You're right it says nothing of repentance, but it demonstrates repentance when they turn from their evil ways.
> God saved them from a coming destruction...Still not eternal salvation, but it does show God interacting with gentiles, although through a Jew. And God showed mercy on them for their works and faith.



One could look at it this way. God destroyed evil cities. Evil cities were full of evil people. Therefore they didn't get elected based on their evil ways. God didn't give them salvation based on grace and election. 
They were destroyed for not following God's law of some sorts.
This is different than God electing based on nothing man does. Whole cities full of people destroyed because of works. While it is true God's elect were removed from some cities and Nineveh was spared, still the destruction of many cities was based on evil.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> OK so the group in Romans 1 were homosexual Pagan idol worshipers. Why didn't God elect them?




God’s election is “unconditional”.  How can “why” be an appropriate question for us to ask?



> They were without excuse. Excuse from what? To  worship and glorify God. Even if it was just a general revelation these idol worshipers had, they were still without excuse to worship God. God was requiring them to worship him. They decided not to. They exchange the truth for a lie. It really matters not whether they were elect or not. God required their worship. They were without excuse.
> They weren't totally depraved.



The only people who might possibly be considered not totally depraved are those who have been regenerated.  We are talking about those “who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth”.  Can we not assume that they are unregenerated.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I can't see  God condemning people based on general revelation, the Law of Moses, or the Law of the Heart if salvation isn't based on following these Laws.
> If salvation isn't based on anything man does then having a general revelation and still worshiping idols would not condemn.
> Wouldn't it take more than a general revelation to open the eyes of a totally depraved person? Either God fully opens ones eyes with election or the person isn't elected. Either the Law is totally provided to the heart or is isn't. God doesn't give just enough Law to hang oneself without  a plan for salvation.
> A person isn't half depraved by general revelation.
> ...



I don’t think so.  I think you were closer the first time.  No one is condemned by general revelation; they are condemned by the fall of Adam.  General revelation takes away “ignorance” as a get out of free card. (that’s why I said I don’t like the saying that I foolishly introduced earlier).


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> They traded the truth for a lie was just trading a general revelation of God's eternal power and divine nature? Their only truth of God was a general revelation? How did that general revelation give them enough of the Holy Spirit to worship God?



I think that, in the context you placed it, the general revelation can be said to parallel one aspect of the Law of Moses (Gal. 3:24 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith”).  Just as more than the Law (grace) is required for salvation, which includes the ability to worship God; more than general revelation (grace) is required.  The Law guides/general revelation guides, but God provides.


> They traded a general revelation for idol worship? What other choice did they have without the Holy Spirit fully opening their eyes? It would take more than a general revelation to make a depraved person worship God. He would need to be elected. Then and only then could he worship God. Then and only then could he be expected to quit sinning. Without a full eye opening experience, this isn't possible. It takes more than a general revelation.



Yah, that’s it.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’



Doesn’t that sound a lot like what I said about the general revelation/Law of Moses; all that has to be added is grace, which only God dispenses “unconditionally” (by His election).


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> God’s election is “unconditional”.  How can “why” be an appropriate question for us to ask?
> 
> 
> 
> The only people who might possibly be considered not totally depraved are those who have been regenerated.  We are talking about those “who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth”.  Can we not assume that they are unregenerated.



Only if an unregenerate person knows the ordinance of God.

These people have exchanged God's truth for a lie. So they have become ungodly and serve what is created rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen!

An unregenerate can't become ungodly.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 14, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Only if an unregenerate person knows the ordinance of God.
> 
> These people have exchanged God's truth for a lie. So they have become ungodly and serve what is created rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen!
> 
> An unregenerate can't become ungodly.



The intent of the passage appears to be the "no get out of jail free card" idea.  While it is a good thing to investigate our interpretation's consistency with associated doctrine, I think we are rapidly approaching the point of  which is not a good thing.  What do you think?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> The intent of the passage appears to be the "no get out of jail free card" idea.  While it is a good thing to investigate our interpretation's consistency with associated doctrine, I think we are rapidly approaching the point of  which is not a good thing.  What do you think?



I agree, I am weary. I would say that the lesson of the passage should begin with Romans 2:1. There one can learn the true meaning of the passage at the end of chapt. 1. The end of chapter 1 was the lure. After we bite, we are given the lesson on judgment. Most people stop at the end of chapter 1 without associating Romans 2:1 with it.

Whoever this group was, they did know some extent of the Law and they were without excuse. They knew of God well enough to know his Judgment. They were turned over to a reprobate mind after abandoning God for idols. They could have been worshipping God before this abandonment or perhaps they were always worshiping idols.
Regardless like you say, they didn't get a get out of jail free card. They were without excuse because they knew God. God turned them over because they traded the truth about God for a lie.


----------



## Israel (Apr 14, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I don’t think so.  I think you were closer the first time.  No one is condemned by general revelation; they are condemned by the fall of Adam.  General revelation takes away “ignorance” as a get out of free card. (that’s why I said I don’t like the saying that I foolishly introduced earlier).


 Thank you brother,
I think that's what I was glimpsing in "all who have heard and learned of the Father, comes to me".
The creation speaks for God, but like a trail of truth, it must be followed. A man can say "I don't see God at all"...yet clinging within himself the persuasion of good toward himself, exclusively. He has being, he enjoys all the "perks" of being...consciousness, judgments, discretions and the power/ability to choose good and evil for himself (or so he thinks), according to _his own_ judgments. What is "good" for him...is good, what he considers of harm, is evil. Sunlight, warmth, a plate of food...in himself he admits to "a" good. But, his judgment undoes him. He has entered an arena in which he is unfit to live amongst others. But, he does not want to be alone...and so deception may be embraced.

But what if, being taught of God...being is "good"...he follows the trail? OK, he may say, if being is good...is it good to me only? What of others? Do I have any power to cause being to appear "less than good" to others? (What believer has not asked himself "why do I do such harm, when I think I mean to "do" good?") Is there, therefore a way to be...without harm? For that to be it would appear the _exclusive_"I" must go, but how can that be apart from suicide? That's all I seem to know...the "I" of me. Can there be a way to live that "I" can be...but not "I" of the exclusive? That "yet not I" spoken of by Gem...and Paul? I believe here...the spirit presents Jesus...when a man despairing by conviction of all his disability to be "amongst others"...but unable to choose the terror of isolation (in truth, to me, the pains of he11) cries out.

Now...I am not at all convinced this takes place at all, or need to...on a conscious level...at all. But, if a man would continue this trail of truth...he might even find all his experience...already walked by others...now expressed in their faithfulness...as the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Here I see, if it be possible, the harsh judgment of those who refuse to receive "the love of the truth"...that will lead to the denial of themself...but not as a religious exercise, but born of affirmation of another. There is nothing to be gained in being strict with our own selves (taste not, touch not) just for the sake of exercising a desire for manifest piety. Here, a man may learn, this fearful truth "I gotta go for safety's sake"...allows for the entrance of another. "I" am toxic to all, but he...is of benefit to all. How then do I live?

I live where I am not toxic, walking in a place where toxicity is not even known...so another may live "here". The things one sees and learns there, in the heavenlies, of revelation...brings the cure of the toxic, and marvellously brings about a marriage of heaven and earth.

We know these things. The man alive in heaven (in the bosom of the Father) is sent to earth, now, on a search and recovery mission. He is learning to speak not his own words, do not his own deeds, nor seek his own will...because he is persuaded of the goodness of will...of the One who has sent him...Jesus the Christ...who came first...to speak not his own words, nor do his own deeds, nor seek  his own will.

In this, order is restored, Christ the head of every man, God, the head of Christ. All of one, all in one. We all know the peril of "come out and fight like a man" vs the comfort and security of remaining hidden...to any and all but those to whom God wishes to reveal our being.

I cannot overstress the goodness of discipline I am taught daily by you who allow me to be amongst you. I desire to flee the "ungoodness" of "It is NOT GOOD for the man to be alone." Learning how this has been accomplished in Christ, on my behalf, to learn to be a man, amongst men, teaches me how to be before the One who has called me. Learning to be aware that to deny any man, is to deny the Christ... manifests in your grace toward me, your knowledge of God.
And affirms the faith into which we are called...but which, to all the world, is foolish.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2015)

Leaving Romans 1 and just a general question concerning no one receiving a get out of jail free card.
Isn't election the get our of jail fee card?

If everyone on the whole planet knows the Universal God, the God of Abraham, and are without excuse, what does it matter if election is the only free get out of jail card?

Why is it if you were to ask people living in these far away lands about the God of Abraham, they would say they only know of their God? They believe their God is the Creator. Why are they without excuse? Again why does it matter as God can also elect form this batch too?

Why aren't they aware that they have traded the truth about God for a lie, just by being born in the wrong nation? Why are they not aware of God's judgment? Why are they without excuse?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2015)

Israel said:


> Thank you brother,
> I think that's what I was glimpsing in "all who have heard and learned of the Father, comes to me".
> The creation speaks for God, but like a trail of truth, it must be followed. A man can say "I don't see God at all"...yet clinging within himself the persuasion of good toward himself, exclusively. He has being, he enjoys all the "perks" of being...consciousness, judgments, discretions and the power/ability to choose good and evil for himself (or so he thinks), according to _his own_ judgments. What is "good" for him...is good, what he considers of harm, is evil. Sunlight, warmth, a plate of food...in himself he admits to "a" good. But, his judgment undoes him. He has entered an arena in which he is unfit to live amongst others. But, he does not want to be alone...and so deception may be embraced.
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2015)

I just realized a contradiction, possibly in my mind only; We all know God by his "general revelation." We are all required to worship God. We are without excuse. Yet how can we worship God if we aren't of the elect? If our hearts haven't been drawn to God by his Spirit?

How does God expect us to worship him instead of idols, false gods, or no gods, if he doesn't give us the ability through knowledge, measure of faith, the Holy spirit or something more than a general revelation?

If I only have a general revelation from God presented by his Creation instead of an eye opening, Holy spirit filled experience of election, how can God hold me without excuse?

Since man does not naturally seek God, God must seek him. There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Man in this state could only pervert general revelation.


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 14, 2015)

The fall has its covenant from the get go. The individuals in it are judged by God from what they know of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God's judgement for them and their response is an ongoing thing, it is their faith and election. 

On the other hand this judgement is no longer in effect in the Christian covenant. Faith itself is different, our relationship with the father thru Christ in heaven is not the same-- the faithful are no longer judged on an ongoing basis. Believers were judged once if they cleave that Jesus is God and that he died for our sins which brought about the the old covenant.

The relationship in a) from Adam to Jesus, is one of judgement.

The relationship in b) from Jesus and forever, is one of love which was the relationship prior to the fall.

Moses had to veil his face in the presence of God, Adam and Eve after the fall had to veil their flesh in their relationship with God. In Christ the temple veil was rent, ( taken away) for those who thru Christ are elected to be on the same side of the veil as God and with Him. But the veil continues for those who fall due to sin and return to the convenant of good and evil, or who do not cleave to the foot of cross. 

Who does God love more? I cannot answer for God, but I know He is deeply interested in those who are in faith with Him and yet still in judgement ( in the covenant of) and those who no longer are to this judgement, but are to His covenant of grace which its genesis in His love.

Art I don't want to butt in more than a sinner like me should,  I do so in loving fellowship. I know you are a good man and that you seek after the things of God in your relationship with Him and your fellow man. BUT...until you assimilate totally in your being that Jesus is God...you will keep going round and round like a hound after his pray-- who is sometimes onto the track and sometimes lost to it.

With loving respect for you...you are asking questions that are only answered from the other side of the veil where Jesus in God with you.

So your questions should be what you wish, but I'll tell you what they are so far.  They ask (question)  about depravity, election, justice, grace.  Etc. These are good things. They also mean different things in different covenants.  So you might be jumping from one covenant to the next and like the hound that is mixed up as to what is fresh and what is old... (... well hope you get it right.)

I think it is time to go back home and spend some time with Jesus both of us and let the work of God's grace do its work in us--- on my side of the veil, Jesus is God. I am now after his justice from His love, and not his judgement--as I am judged already and cannot be trialed again for the sins of the fall for which I am now innocent and guiltless. My savoir is God. May His will be ours.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2015)

The veil continues for those who fall due to sin and return to the convenant of good and evil? Sin can do that to a Christian? What happened to this grace you speak of? 
Seriously you think a belief that Jesus is his Father will answer my question? 
These two relationships a) Adam to Jesus and b) Jesus to forever aren't seen by all of the Trinitarians participating in this thread. 
Therefore I can't see that as the light of my journey. 
Oneness perhaps, Trinitarian no. If Jesus is now the Father then yes.


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 14, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> The veil continues for those who fall due to sin and return to the convenant of good and evil? Sin can do that to a Christian? What happened to this grace you speak of?
> Seriously you think a belief that Jesus is his Father will answer my question?
> These two relationships a) Adam to Jesus and b) Jesus to forever aren't seen by all of the Trinitarians participating in this thread.
> Therefore I can't see that as the light of my journey.
> Oneness perhaps, Trinitarian no. If Jesus is now the Father then yes.



Amen. I do seriously believe that God's grace is, for me, that Jesus is the Father and that seriously if you received Jesus as a person of the trinity and God that many of your questions would be answered.

   "Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? John 14:9

 I take you seriously that you wish to fellowship in the Father. I am serious concerning the answers to your questions if you would fellowship in the Son. 

In both covenants there is faith and repentance. Both covenants honor Him from different sides of the veil. The light on one side is the blinding light of God by the perspective of the fall and judgment, on the other the light is inner and shared through Christ. There is no more veil except for individual sin.  Which is why some  in the old covenant, in the past, and in the present, could/can refuse Jesus as I Am and a person of the Trinity. The light of Christ, which is now with us, is still a veil to them!

If you have noticed the face of Jesus and the voice of Jesus in song, in praise and devotion is a feature of Christianity.  And this is a stumbling block to many as is the Trinity for many, many today who tarry in a judgement relationship with God.

Just ask yourself, "Am I under judgement in my relationship with the Father?" If you are, then grace has not fully done it's work in you and if it has not, then it might be because Jesus as God is not your savoir, although I think that you know the Father is. 

Chose your light. Look at it or see with it.

 I'm not fight with you... hope you would sleep on this... And you know I might be all wrong... or partly wrong... 

I know what answered the questions you ask for me, it was the Holy Spirit from Jesus... after all the questions you have concern mostly lingo from the christian paradigm-- words formulated from people who hold the Trinity essential to holiness in the saints.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Amen. I do seriously believe that God's grace is, for me, that Jesus is the Father and that seriously if you received Jesus as a person of the trinity and God that many of your questions would be answered.
> 
> "Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? John 14:9
> 
> ...



Very well presented and I like your presentation using the Temple veil as well as other veil comparisons in relation to the covenants.

If we are now in the  "b) from Jesus to forever"  relationship, how do people in far away lands who only know God by his general revelation receive the gospel of Jesus to gain salvation through grace & faith?

How did this same group of people living under the "a)from Adam to Jesus" relationship in far away lands who only knew God by his general revelation, receive salvation through God's judgment?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2015)

If general revelation condemns, why can't it offer the path to salvation? If we are without excuse to worship God because of general revelation, meaning general revelation is enough to warrant God's judgment, why doesn't this general revelation give us a path to salvation?

General revelation doesn't just show God's wrath. It also shows his glory and love.


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 14, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Very well presented and I like your presentation using the Temple veil as well as other veil comparisons in relation to the covenants.
> 
> If we are now in the  "b) from Jesus to forever"  relationship, how do people in far away lands who only know God by his general revelation receive the gospel of Jesus to gain salvation through grace & faith?
> 
> How did this same group of people living under the "a)from Adam to Jesus" relationship in far away lands who only knew God by his general revelation, receive salvation through God's judgment?



First question. Great Commission. But also your witness of Christ in you in your family, in our community, in your work, in your nation. All these things that are yours and in common with the people of lands far away.

Second question. They receive it through their faith or relationship with God. No one fully knows his spouse whom he or she loves dearly--does not matter how many yrs they have been married. It is the same with God... we don't have to know everything about Him to love Him.

God will judge men by their judgements-- on how in spirit they are in esteem to His. ( Art, I don't what to talk for God, so I hope you get my drift here.)

So many people have talked about the "law" that the "law" does not mean anything anymore regards our spiritual history. Hope I was able to help you... but your help like mine is in Christ.



I think this is worth repeating bros:


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 14, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If general revelation condemns, why can't it offer the path to salvation? If we are without excuse to worship God because of general revelation, meaning general revelation is enough to warrant God's judgment, why doesn't this general revelation give us a path to salvation?
> 
> General revelation doesn't just show God's wrath. It also shows his glory and love.



It does, but as man teaches it perhaps...


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 14, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If general revelation condemns, why can't it offer the path to salvation? If we are without excuse to worship God because of general revelation, meaning general revelation is enough to warrant God's judgment, why doesn't this general revelation give us a path to salvation?
> 
> General revelation doesn't just show God's wrath. It also shows his glory and love.





hummerpoo said:


> ...No one is condemned by general revelation; they are condemned by the fall of Adam.  General revelation takes away “ignorance” as a get out of free card (an excuse). (that’s why I said I don’t like the saying that I foolishly introduced earlier).



Same for "judgment".

The "path to salvation" is GRACE.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> It does, but as man teaches it perhaps...



You put too much faith in man. What about all the lost souls we never reached? Then there were lost souls before the Great Commission. 
At least Election offers some far away Gentiles salvation. Still though they see the general revelation as just condemning. 
I would like to think God gives everyone a chance but if not then electing a few around the world is better than none.

Condemnation through general revelation with no path to salvation appears wrong. But then one could grow in a righteous Christian family and still not get elected. 
Yet the far away pagan can be. That's an interesting thought to ponder. Election gives more people a chance at salvation world wide than free will.


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 14, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Same for "judgment".
> 
> The "path to salvation" is GRACE.



Good point. Grace is active in both covenants.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 14, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Good point. Grace is active in both covenants.



I have a really good thread starter for the covenant.  I may be up to posting it in a few years.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2015)

Posted by hummerpoo 
...No one is condemned by general revelation; they are condemned by the fall of Adam. General revelation takes away “ignorance” as a get out of free card (an excuse). (that’s why I said I don’t like the saying that I foolishly introduced earlier).





hummerpoo said:


> Same for "judgment".
> 
> The "path to salvation" is GRACE.



We are all condemned by the fall of Adam. No one is getting a free get our of jail card regardless. A general revelation isn't needed to make this true. If having a general revelation is to take away ignorance as an excuse then that doesn't say much about election. 

Why can we find people today who have never heard of the God of Abraham, ignorant? 

If salvation is through election only nothing else matters. Nothing whatsoever in regards to general revelations, the law of Moses, or the Law in our heart. It doesn't matter to God what law or absent of Law you know. You are still doomed to die an everlasting death. God is no respecter of man. 
Salvation is through grace only and it always has been. Nothing has changed. 
We can finally quit teaching people about God. God doesn't need our help. He will elect from every group regardless of their knowledge of Him or his Law. Regardless of how good or bad they are. In Election nothing matters from the person. It's all about God and his plan.

We can finally quit bringing up Bible verses that will keep someone out of the Kingdom of God. Everything will keep one out of the Kingdom except God's Grace.

Hey, I think that's the Gospel in a nutshell!


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 14, 2015)

I will tell you what use I have for the word "elected". I will tell you with a comparison. In the late 1950s, automobile manufactures decided to embellish their cars with "wings" on the rear fenders. Examples were as per the 57 chevy, the Dodge and the Plymouth of that decade. ( By the way the Chysler products had lumbering six cylinder engines in relatively heavy automobiles-- the wings although imaginative weighed down the whole contraption down even more.)

Now most of these cars are rust spots in backfields, with a few being collector stock. They are interesting to look at, but not practical. 

And that is my assessment of the words " elect and election".  They are good to look at once in  awhile, but in the real world and the real kingdom they are like a horse and buggy to a modern vehicle. Some still use them but man...


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 14, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Posted by hummerpoo
> ...No one is condemned by general revelation; they are condemned by the fall of Adam. General revelation takes away “ignorance” as a get out of free card (an excuse). (that’s why I said I don’t like the saying that I foolishly introduced earlier).
> 
> We are all condemned by the fall of Adam. No one is getting a free get our of jail card regardless. A general revelation isn't needed to make this true. If having a general revelation is to take away ignorance as an excuse then that doesn't say much about election.
> ...



I don't know what it is, but it doesn't look like the Gospel to me.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 15, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I don't know what it is, but it doesn't look like the Gospel to me.



Yeah, that was kinda long. Now in a nutshell; grace God's grace.


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 15, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Yeah, that was kinda long. Now in a nutshell; grace God's grace.



LOL  Somehow that is funny in a right kind of way... right there.


----------



## Israel (Apr 16, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> > =Israel;9428342]Thank you brother,
> > I think that's what I was glimpsing in "all who have heard and learned of the Father, comes to me".
> > The creation speaks for God, but like a trail of truth, it must be followed. A man can say "I don't see God at all"...yet clinging within himself the persuasion of good toward himself, exclusively. He has being, he enjoys all the "perks" of being...consciousness, judgments, discretions and the power/ability to choose good and evil for himself (or so he thinks), according to _his own_ judgments. What is "good" for him...is good, what he considers of harm, is evil. Sunlight, warmth, a plate of food...in himself he admits to "a" good. But, his judgment undoes him. He has entered an arena in which he is unfit to live amongst others. But, he does not want to be alone...and so deception may be embraced.
> 
> ...



Art, I think we see things differently in what Jesus said, there.
I do not think Jesus was saying "all who have heard of" the Father...as in "Hey, did you know Abraham had a God, you ever hear about that?" from something. or some man.

But Hearing from the Father, learning from the Father.

Not simply that there is a Father...but of truly having heard Him. To have heard God. When one becomes aware of God's righteousness...and the demands of righteousness...I believe he is _pressed _to Jesus.


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 20, 2015)

God had a covenant line of people from Adam to Abraham to the Messiah.

 From Adams line to Abraham through Seth, Noah, and Shem, they all have long life spans, but not of the line of Cain 

In this it could be said that God's chosen (  Jew) began with Adam.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 5, 2015)

Ephesians 3:5-7
5which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, 7of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power.

This mystery that Gentiles were fellow heirs wasn't revealed until the apostles and prophets revealed it. Were the Gentiles heirs before the mystery was revealed? In other words they were heirs all along, they just didn't know it.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 5, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Were the Gentiles heirs before the mystery was revealed?



Yes.


----------

