So coolSo cool how you circle back and ask the same question again and again.
So coolSo cool how you circle back and ask the same question again and again.
Ninevah did hear the word of God. So obviously not talking about them. And I don't believe fairness is an attribute of God. He is said to be righteous. And it is certain that large swaths of humanity never heard the gospel. There are still those today who have not heard the gospel. What of these?So your saying God is not fair?
Or is it God knows they would not believe no matter what he did. and if they would. He gets them the gospel?
how did those in the OT get saved never having heard the law (think ninevah and other places)
Because believers never ever ever talk about what is true of non-believers? And Paul never did? Psshhhh.
He never mentioned what he was like as an unbeliever? Never said anything about them being blinded,
under the power and influence of the devil? Gosh. Who then said all those thing, about children of wrath,
of being once like them, a lot was said in that regard. An awful lot. Are you really trying to tell us it was not Paul???
![]()
From: John 8 verse 34; 2 Peter 2 verse 19a; Galatians 4 verse 8; Romans 7 verse 14; Ephesians 2 verse 3b; Romans 6 v 6 ~ “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.” They are slaves of corruption. When you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. You were of the flesh, sold under sin. We were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. Our old self was crucified so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
once again.
bowing out.
why do you continue to call me out?
Yes. I laugh out loud alot. because I can not believe some of the things I hear. and its better to laugh, then to get angry.
And I don't believe fairness is an attribute of God
This verse doesn't say they never heard the gospel; only that they are dead at the time it was written.It’s still going will until the end
Even if someone lives and never heard like those in Noah’s time
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,”
1 Peter 3:18-20 NIV
even if a person had died before it was preached
“For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.”
1 Peter 4:6 NIV
Yes......Greek rhetorical sublties escape us today in great measure. Hebrew sublties even more crippling.Thanks for ending this. I kind of expected it based upon previous discussions in which I offered to get into Scripture more in depth with you and you wouldn't do so. When you start the mocking and fallacious inferences it all goes down hill from there.
FWIW, of you do ever desire to do some more thinking about the Greek tenses and the depth of Greek rhetoric, philosophy, drama, etc. built into their language and thus capable of expressing their thinking which is quite different than much of western thought, though we do have the historic present also:
A search for the historic present in literature:
Here's a vivid example from Alice Walker’s essay “Beauty: When the Other Dancer Is the Self”, where she uses the historic present tense to draw readers into a childhood memory:“It is a bright summer day in 1947. My father, a fat, funny man with beautiful eyes and a subversive wit, is trying to decide which of his eight children he will take with him to the county fair. My mother, of course, will not go. She is knocked out from getting most of us ready...”Although the events occurred decades earlier, Walker narrates them in the present tense—“is,” “will,” “go”—to create immediacy and emotional resonance. It feels like you're right there, watching the scene unfold.
A quick search of views over time re: historic present and other uses of the present tense:
Quick Definitions
Interpretive Traditions on Romans 7:7–25 – "I" and Tense Use
- Prosopopoeia: Rhetorical technique where the speaker adopts another character’s voice.
- Historic Present: Use of present-tense verbs to narrate past events, often for vividness or emotional immediacy.
As I've attempted to point out, this discussion has been going on for a long time. It's a real discussion based in interpretation of context and use of tenses in rhetorical Greek literature.
- Reformed Tradition (Augustine, Luther, Calvin)
- "I": Paul as a regenerate believer
- Present Tense: Autobiographical, ongoing struggle
- Prosopopoeia: Typically rejected
- Implication: Christian life includes continual tension with sin; Romans 7 is normative
- Early Church Fathers (Origen, Chrysostom)
- "I": Unregenerate or pre-conversion Paul
- Present Tense: Dramatizes pre-Christian experience
- Prosopopoeia: Implied
- Implication: Romans 7 describes bondage under Law, leading to Spirit-filled freedom in Romans 8
- Sanday & Headlam (Early Modern View)
- "I": Possibly autobiographical but rhetorically heightened
- Present Tense: Used for vividness (historic present)
- Prosopopoeia: Possible
- Implication: Tension resolves at 7:25a; pivot to Spirit empowerment
- Stanley Stowers (Modern Rhetorical View)
- "I": Representative figure (likely Jewish, not Paul)
- Present Tense: Dramatic impersonation
- Prosopopoeia: Explicit
- Implication: Romans 7 is a constructed voice showing Law's inability to justify or sanctify
- Will Timmins
- "I": Representative, but with theological connections to Paul
- Present Tense: Rhetorical and experiential blend
- Prosopopoeia: Qualified
- Implication: Merges rhetorical strategy with existential depth; emphasizes interpretive flexibility
- Evangelical Scholars (Douglas Moo, Thomas Schreiner)
- "I": Paul as believer speaking of inner conflict
- Present Tense: Reflects real-time Christian struggle
- Prosopopoeia: Generally dismissed
- Implication: Romans 7 reflects believer's reality before full Spirit-empowered transformation in Romans 8
You're obviously welcome to your opinion, but mocking other opinions IMO puts you in a bad light in the overall discussion.
As I said, I understand both your and @sawdust views. I also understand the above historical discussions.
Poor Zacharias and Elizabeth. They did not realize that they were terminally afflicted with "total depravity" and in their vain imagination worshipped God anyways.Some are prone to making much ado about the nothing of their vain imaginations.
Scripture makes it very clear [to those who will hear] that God chose a people to be His before time began [saints, set aside]. Try reading His word beginning with Eph 1:3 and notice that His word is speaking of things done in the past.There we have it. Explain?
That is very true! And His justice for His chosen people was satisfied in Christ's death and resurrection.God's Justice is an integral part of His divine nature.
Many here do not believe faith is a gift given. Scripture says all good things come from God but they will contradict and deny that faith is part of that just as surely as they contradict and deny many many other passages. There are quite a few Pelagian heretics here, also. Aside from minimizing what is said of the wickedness of the unregenerate man, some specifically claim that when Scripture says there are none good it only applies to atheists. They rewrite what Jesus said so instead of Him saying, whoever sins is a slave to sin, He says whoever chooses to sin is a slave to sin. And again, according to them, it is only atheists who choose to sin. All other unbelievers are somehow excluded from these considerations. As sinners they don't choose to sin, as sinners they are considered good. It is hard to escape these conclusions which must be drawn from their claims, and quite frankly they make no sense. All fall short and there are none good but God.
It seems to me there is confusion on many fronts starting with the term free will itself which is not in the Bible. So they throw this term around and people believe that because they can choose what color socks to wear it somehow has some bearing on the eternal fate of their soul, which completely misses the mark. Another piece of the puzzle is the fact that those who profess free will have a derangement syndrome known as CDS but they largely refuse to acknowledge that man's inability is not exclusive to calvinism. They don't like the term depravity either but it is not exclusive to calvinism either. On the other hand the Bible does teach that God moves first and that nobody is seeking for God ... that they only come because He draws them with loving kindness to engender repentance.It sounds like the confusion is within the context of a believer which makes the quote “whoever chooses to sin” true. Because in Christ we are set free from sin which also means we have a choice to either obey or disobey in the pursuit of sanctification.
As for the unbeliever, legalism gets them nowhere. Choosing to obey certain rules while ignoring the fact that the debt of sin is so copious that we are only left with one choice.
To respond to God
Or
Deny Him
Sorry bro.
Its not there. nor would it make sense. You can not force something into a text that is not there. Paul had no war before he was saved,, He could only do bad..
lol. Yes. alot of people are trying to change the words of God. they have been doing that for years,
And no. I can not see both views. the view paul spoke of past tense. before he was saved does not fit.
Again, He had no law
And again, he could not serve Christ.
romans 7: So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
These are the two laws Paul said he struggled with. and this is his answer to how he will work through it. it is present tense. it is not he struggled with the flesh before he was saved and now he can serve God in his present state of salvation.
That does not fit.
It is not a past issue, it is a present issue.
Scripture makes it very clear [to those who will hear] that God chose a people to be His before time began [saints, set aside]. Try reading His word beginning with Eph 1:3 and notice that His word is speaking of things done in the past.
Even though God sets various people aside as belonging to Him, it may not become evident for many years. But, it will happen at His time of choosing. This applies to those in OT times, as well as those in NT times.
Those chosen are not any better than those not chosen. But, God will in time show them mercy. Others will not receive mercy and will condemn themselves.
God never speaks of His fairness, and He is a debtor to no man. In fact He says:
Rom 9:21 - Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
You make the error that many do by conflating having a choice with having free will. Nor does having a human will mean that it is free, because it is constrained by far too many factors to be considered truly free, Especially as a lover of darkness who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness because he is taken captive to the will of the devil. The will of the natural man is inherently in opposition to God and hostile to Him.
I have always believed that there would be no sadness in heaven.
Yeah the point I was making is he preached it to them after they had died even those people from the days of Noah who drown on the flood ….and also. Those who were dead in the time after Jesus died and rose and sent the gospel to all creation…. Even those who had died day back on the flood thousands of years priorThis verse doesn't say they never heard the gospel; only that they are dead at the time it was written.
It’s actually to that purpose Jesus himself entered into death to be the lord of the living and the deadYeah the point I was making is he preached it to them after they had died even those people from the days of Noah who drown on the flood ….and also. Those who were dead in the time after Jesus died and rose and sent the gospel to all creation…. Even those who had died day back on the flood thousands of years prior
literally all of creation the living and the dead
This advances the discussion re: belief vs. faith that I earlier flagged @sawdust @HeIsHere @cv5 @Hakawaka about. IMO it would be a good discussion to continue.
First, a question due to the way these threads go: What theological tradition do you hold to, if any? Is it Reformed?
Next, a few comments and questions:
A few questions to others (and please correct me if I've misunderstood):
- In Eph2:8 there is substantial debate re: "faith" being part of the gift. Based upon the grammar, many do not interpret faith being the gift, but the gift being the entire phrase paraphrased, "salvation by grace through faith." Your thoughts?
- Under pisteuō you're including this "God's inbirthing of faith" concept apart from really proving it. In your description you seem to be saying since the second use of pisteuō is translated as "believe" it means "used of persuading oneself (= human believing)" - so people are persuading themselves about God's existence and being a rewarder? Is this what you're saying?
- @sawdust you seem to be saying, as does the above, that belief and faith are not the same. Can you elaborate?
- @HeIsHere I think you said pistis is belief/faith, so they are the same. Correct?
- @cv5 any thoughts?
- @Hakawaka any thoughts or were you mainly bringing up and supporting synergism?
- Anybody else?
pisteuō is translated as "believe" it means "used of persuading oneself (= human believing)" - so people are persuading themselves about God's existence and being a rewarder? Is this what you're saying?