Chapter 8 follows 7 perfectly! 7 is about sanctification and the material in ch. 8 has to do with the life of the Christian, and it is also clear that the stress is on the believers relationship to the Holy Spirit and the effect the Spirit has on the believer. The word pneuma, “spirit” occurs only 5 times in ch. 1-7 and 8 times in ch. 9-11, but some twenty times in ch. 8. Paul speaks of what is true for those who are in Christ. In the letter he compares one who is guided by the spirit and one guided by the flesh.

In ch.7 Paul is addressing the (“brethren” v.1) in Rome who are attached to the law and as a result cannot find victory from sin.

Paul understood that as long as believing Jews (or any believer for that matter) focused on the law they would NOT find strength or victory in their battles with sin. That’s because the law’s purpose is not to strengthen the believer but to lead the unbeliever to Christ.

Paul knows the law since he was once a slave to it. – Starting at v.2, he uses an analogy of marriage to illustrate a point concerning the law – “a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage” – v. 4 “Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.” ESV

His point is that women are released from their husbands once their husbands die, we too (believers) are released from the law because of Christ’ death.

The message is of Sanctification – But how so? Well, because it’s impossible to find victory living under the law – You don’t have to be a Jew to know that. Gentile Christians are legalists too and continually find themselves trapped in sin because their minds are set on the flesh. They focus on the flesh and thereby the law so much they forget the fact that they are a new creation in Christ. Paul’s message is we ought-not pretend to find victory in our own strength – Victory for the believer comes when we recognize who we are in Christ Jesus and when we rely on the Holy Spirit for help (Romans 8:12-14).

8 reinforces these thoughts!

It’s not a passage about God’s decree or eternal destinations.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/04/repperts-ruminations-on-reformed.html

Where does Romans mention anyone’s eternal destiny? Where?.

Romans 8—which is the passage I cited.

Even where individuals are mentioned (Jacob and Esau, and Pharoah) they are elected for historic roles, not for heaven or hell.

You seem to have targeted Romans 9 as being critical to my position, which is strange since I don’t remember ever using it in such a way.

Regards,
Bnonn

Of course, this isn’t a “theory.” This is Biblical teaching. Theology isn’t a scientific hypothesis.

I’m not a deconstructionist. It’s just that I am more certain that it is wrong to inflict pain on little children for your own amusement than I am that the “world” in John 3: 16 refers to the elect and not to all persons.

I don’t believe that the “world” in John 3:16 refers to the elect. I believe it refers to the world; that is, all people indiscriminately.

The supreme good, according to Calvinism, is God’s glory. I still don’t know what that means. It looks to me like this theory of the good is just a blank check to justify whatever you think God has done. If God had chosen to save everyone or damn everyone, we would say it was for His glory if we wanted to. So the theory doesn’t explain anything, since it could be used to explain everything.

But this isn’t so. I gave a good definition of what glory was in my previous reply to you; and demonstrated that saving everyone would bring God less glory than damning some and saving some. By merit of the reasons for this, it is also evident that he would get far less glory by damning everyone.

As regards universalism, I think that’s a bit beyond the scope of our discussion. I’m afraid I don’t have time to interact with that; I will simply have to defer to very good works such as Whatever Happened to Hell? by John Blanchard.

I am not a theological voluntarist; I am simply willing to concede that my moral intuitions may be wrong, and actually expect them to be because Scripture tells me to. Denying theological voluntarism does not commit me to affirming the truth of my moral intuitions. It commits me to affirming that the category of goodness built into me by God is congruent with the objective category of goodness intrinsic to his own character. This does not imply that the propositions I place into that category will necessarily be correct.

We can, and do, bend and grow our conception of goodness in the light of Scripture. But what do we do when we encounter a reading of Scripture that breaks our ordinary moral conceptions, rather than just bend it? As Tevye says in Fiddler on the Roof, “If I bend that far, I’ll break.” We can conclude that Scripture is wrong, that our conceptions are wrong, or that this interpretation of the text is wrong. If we have an expert consensus on these matters, then we could remove doubt about our interpretation and consider the other options.

Firstly, I have really already answered this. I can’t see that you’ve really even interacted with, let alone refuted my objections; you just seem to be reiterating your own. Secondly, I don’t have a problem with prioritizing an interpretation of Scripture which conforms to our moral intuitions over one which doesn’t—provided all other things are equal. But not all interpretations are made equal.

A connections with my own conceptions of good what makes the Christian God and Scripture valid for me.

I’m not sure how to respond to that. The internal testimony of the Spirit is what assures me of the Bible’s validity; not how congruent it is with my own moral convictions. I am not in a position to judge Scripture in that way.

Whatever infallibility God may have, whatever infallibility Scripture may have, cannot be transferred into the hands of fallible exegetes, however expert they may be. Our salvation may be in God’s firm hands, our understanding of that salvation, even with the assistance of Scripture, is in our hands.

Fair enough; but then why don’t you interact with (i) the various exegeses of the passages in question and (ii) the objections which Paul, Steve, Gene and myself have made to the theological system which arises from the interpretations you favor?

Regards,
Bnonn

I’m not a deconstructionist. It’s just that I am more certain that it is wrong to inflict pain on little children for your own amusement than I am that the “world” in John 3: 16 refers to the elect and not to all persons. I’m a fallibilist, not a deconstructionist. I’m not even denying inerrancy by saying this, just affirming the fallibility of my understanding of what the Bible says.

Calvinism attributes to God actions which in any parallel human context would be considered wrong by anyone. Or, rather, I should say the omnipotent one. We are not entitled to use the term “God” unless the being in question is good in some sense that is continuous with the use of the term “good” as it is used in ordinary language. Otherwise, we’re just Humpty-dumptying our terms.

The supreme good, according to Calvinism, is God’s glory. I still don’t know what that means. It looks to me like this theory of the good is just a blank check to justify whatever you think God has done. If God had chosen to save everyone or damn everyone, we would say it was for His glory if we wanted to. So the theory doesn’t explain anything, since it could be used to explain everything.

There’s no uncertainty about predestination so long as you focus on certain passages. If you focus on others, you come out an Arminian or a universalist. In Romans is says whoever believes and confesses is saved, in Philippians it says that eventually every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. Put those two verses together and you get a case for universalism. Of course you can read these passages in the light of the doctrine of everlasting punishment, but can’t you equally read passages about hell in the light of the doctrine of universal salvation? Thus the “elect” who are converted can be perceived as “first fruits.” “Eternal” on this system of exegesis means age-long rather than absolutely eternal.

I would have to admit that I am not in the class of either D. A. Carson or Ben Witherington as exegetes. So far as I can tell, neither are you. Both of these guys know more than I do about Scripture. Carson, I take it, is a Calvinist, Witherington is an Arminian. As is, I believe, N. T. Wright. Or is Wright a universalist? I forget. There is expert opinion on the exegesis of the relevant passages, and it is far from unanimous. These guys are better than me at Scripture scholarship. What I am perhaps good at is the analysis of the meanings of terms, of asking whether a term is used consistently across contexts. If you use words in ways that do violence to their ordinary meanings, then I start objecting.

What does it mean to say that God is good? Is it just a way of saying “God is bigger than you are, and can beat you up forever if you don’t obey him?” If that’s what it means, then the term just doesn’t mean anything.

Are you a theological voluntarist? Your friends over at Triablogue, especially Paul, want to distance themselves from theological voluntarism. You seem closer to it yourself. Are things right just because the most powerful being in the universe has commanded it. I can imagine an Omnipotent Fiend. If theological voluntarism is true, there cannot, by definition, be an Omnipotent Fiend.

We can, and do, bend and grow our conception of goodness in the light of Scripture. But what do we do when we encounter a reading of Scripture that breaks our ordinary moral conceptions, rather than just bend it? As Tevye says in Fiddler on the Roof, “If I bend that far, I’ll break.” We can conclude that Scripture is wrong, that our conceptions are wrong, or that this interpretation of the text is wrong. If we have an expert consensus on these matters, then we could remove doubt about our interpretation and consider the other options.

What makes God God? Is it just His omnipotence? Or we might ask, what makes Scripture Scripture? Remember, there are lots of candidates out there. The Qu’ran, the Book of Mormon, the Hebrew Scriptures without the NT, the Bhagavad-Gita. A connections with my own conceptions of good what makes the Christian God and Scripture valid for me.

I won’t call God a liar. I will call God a provider of incomplete information. The theology that the comforters of Job was in accordance with the teachings of many Scriptures. It is the apparent teaching of passages in Deuteronomy and Proverbs that the righteous will prosper on earth and the wicked will suffer on earth. Are those passages lies?

Whatever infallibility God may have, whatever infallibility Scripture may have, cannot be transferred into the hands of fallible exegetes, however expert they may be. Our salvation may be in God’s firm hands, our understanding of that salvation, even with the assistance of Scripture, is in our hands.