1 John 2:23

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Your own word contradict you conclusions, read ,their claims of sight made them guilty,not their blindness.

Your own words contradict your argument. Read my post - I nowhere said their blindness made them guilty. I even said, in my original post:

Their guilt was in claiming to know God and yet rejecting Christ as Messiah and Lord (as unbelieving Jews today do), hence proving that they were, in fact, blind.

What I also said, and perhaps what you misunderstood, was that I said their blindness was a form of judgment. However, that’s not a contradiction - that’s precisely what Christ said in verse 39.

no St.Paul does not use the word everyone in these verses, just certain men. those that know the truth of God the same truth which God made mainfest to them.

Actually, he doesn’t say “just certain men.” The apostle Paul states “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (v. 18). He does say “what can be mknown about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them” (v. 19), but how has God shown this? “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (v. 20). The apostle Paul is saying that men are capable of seeing the truth of God in all things, and hence those who do not follow the true God are without excuse. This is contrary to the assumption that scripture somehow teaches that, because men just didn’t know any better, they have an excuse. He’s clearly teaching that those who turn to false faiths should know, and hence are judged righteously by God. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (v. 22).

 

[fbl9]

Your own words contradict your argument. Read my post - I nowhere said their blindness made them guilty. I even said, in my original post:

What I also said, and perhaps what you misunderstood, was that I said their blindness was a form of judgment. However, that’s not a contradiction - that’s precisely what Christ said in verse 39.

Actually, he doesn’t say “just certain men.” The apostle Paul states “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (v. 18). He does say “what can be mknown about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them” (v. 19), but how has God shown this? “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (v. 20). The apostle Paul is saying that men are capable of seeing the truth of God in all things, and hence those who do not follow the true God are without excuse. This is contrary to the assumption that scripture somehow teaches that, because men just didn’t know any better, they have an excuse. He’s clearly teaching that those who turn to false faiths should know, and hence are judged righteously by God. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (v. 22).

 

[fbl9]

Byzantine Wolf–

There can be a variety of reasons that people of other religions don’t recognize Jesus as the Christ. God alone is able to discern their culpability or innocence for that.

Again, rejection and denial are not the same thing as not knowing or not recognizing.

Might I ask where in scripture does it speak of “not knowing” or “not recognizing”? Where does it say a person may receive forgiveness for rejection of God and denying Him based on this?

The gospel according to St.John 9:40-41"And some of the Pharisees who where with Him heard ths,and they said to him’are we blind also" And Jesus said to them “if you were blind you would not have sin.But now that you say “we see” your sin remains”.

This is also misunderstanding the purpose of these verses.
It is not saying that a person is exempt simply for being spiritually blind. The apostle Paul makes it clear that everyone has some inner feeling of the truth about God, and hence are left inexcusable for idolatry, false worship, or sin (cf. Rom 1:18-23).

i guess Jesus was just flapping His gums saying “if you were blind,you would not have sin” because by your understanding these words have no meaning what so ever. talk about tradition of men making God’s word void.
and no St.Paul does not state everyone, again verse 18"…of those men…" nothing about all men like you try and inflict on the written words.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

i guess Jesus was just flapping His gums saying “if you were blind,you would not have sin” because by your understanding these words have no meaning what so ever. talk about tradition of men making God’s word void.
and no St.Paul does not state everyone, again verse 18"…of those men…" nothing about all men like you try and inflict on the written words.

Sarcasm is not a response. I explained what the verses meant, and if I haven’t done it properly, please demonstrate how.

And Paul does not say “of those men.” That’s clearly adding to his words, especially since I quoted the full verse in my previous response. It also contradicts his building to Romans 3 - Paul goes at length regarding Gentile, unbelieving cultures in Romans 1, attacks self-righteous Jews in Romans 2, and concludes that all men - Jews and Gentiles - are guilty before God in Romans 3.

 

[fbl9]

Sarcasm is not a response. I explained what the verses meant, and if I haven’t done it properly, please demonstrate how.

And Paul does not say “of those men.” That’s clearly adding to his words, especially since I quoted the full verse in my previous response. It also contradicts his building to Romans 3 - Paul goes at length regarding Gentile, unbelieving cultures in Romans 1, attacks self-righteous Jews in Romans 2, and concludes that all men - Jews and Gentiles - are guilty before God in Romans 3.

if i could copy and paste direct from my bible i would and it say those men. do you realise not all men are religious leaders or founders? It is precisely these that St.paul is speaking of. and again what do you do with the words of Christ"if you were blind then you would not have sin" are not the words of Christ truthful? for if one is truly blind they have not sin.

 

[cheezey]

See Cheezey’s post. Not knowing and not recognizing do not equal rejection and denial. That’s a reality in relationships.

that’s what I was pointing out…

23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. DR

 

[cheezey]

if i could copy and paste direct from my bible i would and it say those men. do you realise not all men are religious leaders or founders? It is precisely these that St.paul is speaking of. and again what do you do with the words of Christ"if you were blind then you would not have sin" are not the words of Christ truthful? for if one is truly blind they have not sin.

any time you wish to cut and paste from your Bible, this is a great site:
(Perhaps already mentioned somewhere on this site…)

.biblestudytools.com

 

[cheezey]

Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. 21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things.
Douay-Rheims

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

if i could copy and paste direct from my bible i would and it say those men.

Romans 1:18 in the original Greek:

Ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ θεοῦ ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων

The part I put in bold is the word for “men” (generally speaking, as in “humanity”) in the genitive form, which is generally translated as “of men,” not “of those men.”

do you realise not all men are religious leaders or founders? It is precisely these that St.paul is speaking of.

And where is that in all of Romans 1? Especially in the section I cited.

and again what do you do with the words of Christ"if you were blind then you would not have sin" are not the words of Christ truthful? for if one is truly blind they have not sin.

My friend, I have answered that. Your initial response attempted to find a contradiction. When I pointed out there was no such contradiction, you didn’t bother to say “Oops, my bad” or try to further your claim that I had given a contradiction. Instead, you gave a sarcastic response (leaving out my entire explanation in your quoting of me), then acted as if I had provided no response at all. With all due respect, it comes across as if you’re intentionally avoiding a real response to my exegesis.

 

[AbideWithMe]

And where is that in all of Romans 1? Especially in the section I cited.

Byzantine Wolf—The idea of teachers being judged more strictly is in James.

Romans 1 is talking about men who “suppress the truth by their wickedness”. Well, suppressing a known truth ----or even a partially-understood truth (known via one’s conscience or natural law)— is indeed wicked. But it doesn’t follow that everyone who doesn’t know Christ has committed such a positive evil, by any means. We mere humans simply are not in a position to untangle and judge other humans’ consciences. And why would we need to?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Romans 1 is talking about men who “suppress the truth by their wickedness”. Well, suppressing a known truth ----or even a partially-understood truth (known via one’s conscience or natural law)— is indeed wicked. But it doesn’t follow that everyone who doesn’t know Christ has committed such a positive evil, by any means. We mere humans simply are not in a position to untangle and judge other humans’ consciences. And why would we need to?

If we are to believe “it doesn’t follow that everyone who doesn’t know Christ has committed such a positive evil,” then we have a case of special pleading, because, again, nowhere in scripture is such a case given. That is a philosophical argument being made over and against scripture, in which case we must ask where our true authority is.

As for the argument that we “simply are not in a position to untangle and judge other humans’ consciences,” who is saying that anyone is? What is being talked about is scriptural truth. The human conscience is dead in trespasses and sin, and they are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3) - that’s a scriptural truth, and we do a disservice if we try to hide that simply because it might offend someone. It is the same with the factor that those who reject the Son reject the Father, and the fact that Christ is God the Son, who wishes worship to be given towards him. Stating that is no more a judgment against the conscience of unbelievers than stating smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer is a judgment against the conscience of cigarette smokers.

 

[AbideWithMe]

If we are to believe “it doesn’t follow that everyone who doesn’t know Christ has committed such a positive evil,” then we have a case of special pleading, because, again, nowhere in scripture is such a case given.

**I wouldn’t be so sure that nowhere in scripture is such as case given. Also, I believe the idea that I was referring to is a part of natural law, written on our hearts. Even we humans recognize that judges should determine if a person is, for example, deliberately suppressing a truth they know, or not aware of the truth for any one of a myriad of reasons. That’s just common sense, not Scripture-denying sophistry. **

… that’s a scriptural truth, and we do a disservice if we try to hide that simply because it might offend someone.

I can say in all honesty that it isn’t fear of offending anyone that causes me to disagree with you.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

AbideWithMe;

Whether or not they are “aware” of denying the truth, or are “deliberately” doing it, is really, when you get right down to it, irrelevant. I’ve had atheist homosexuals look me in the face and claim, with great surety, that they aren’t suppressing any divine or “internal” truth, but Paul clearly says they are. The very nature of fallen man is that they don’t realize they’re fallen - that realization comes with the preaching of the Law and regeneration leading to repentance.

Let me also clarify something, and perhaps we can come to a better understanding on this. I would never go into a mosque and point around the room blanketly saying, “You’re going to hell, you’re going to hell, you’re going to hell,” etc. However, I would preach their need of a Redeemer for their sins, Christ crucified, and his sovereignty to Muslims, and if a Muslim asked me if he was going to hell, I’d tell him so long as he rejects the Lordship and Divinity of Christ, he will be judged accordingly for his sins. If someone else asked me if Muslims worshiped God, I would be frank and tell them no, because the testimony of scripture tells me this, and says nothing to the contrary, and conscience tells me that adding anything more is simply being false. It’s not a matter of becoming judge, jury and executioner - it’s a matter of being ambassadors for Christ, and not shrinking from the fullness of the message God has given us.

 

[fbl9]

This is also misunderstanding the purpose of these verses. Christ had just spoken of part of his purpose for coming into the world, which was for judgment, meaning: “that those who do not see may see [spiritually], and those who see may become blind [spiritually]” (v. 39). The Pharisees, hearing this, and having condemned the man born (literally) blind earlier in the story, ask if they are blind. Christ states, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt,” meaning, of course, the guilt of rejecting him as they were, but “now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.” That last part is important - the Pharisees claimed that they were the true followers of their day, and therefore they claimed that they had spiritual sight. On the contrary, they were spiritually blind, and so their claims of sight made them guilty. Their guilt was in claiming to know God and yet rejecting Christ as Messiah and Lord (as unbelieving Jews today do), hence proving that they were, in fact, blind. Note too that, in Christ’s own words, this blindness is a sign of judgment: the Pharisees claimed to be able to see, and yet were made blind by God; the man born blind was believed by the Pharisees to be blind (both literally and spiritually), and yet Christ made him see (both literally and spiritually), showing he had the mercy and favor of God.

It is not saying that a person is exempt simply for being spiritually blind. The apostle Paul makes it clear that everyone has some inner feeling of the truth about God, and hence are left inexcusable for idolatry, false worship, or sin (cf. Rom 1:18-23).

i guess i am not very bright for i do not see you addressing the words of Christ"if you were blind you would not have sin"
you seem to be saying that if one is blind they still have sin.the exact opposite of what Christ said

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

i guess i am not very bright for i do not see you addressing the words of Christ"if you were blind you would not have sin"
you seem to be saying that if one is blind they still have sin.the exact opposite of what Christ said

What I said, if you study my words carefully, was that in the context of what Christ was talking about, the guilt of the Pharisees was in claiming to see, but in fact were blind. I also stressed that verse 39 was important, because Christ, after proving the regeneration and faith of the man born (physically) blind, was stating that he had come into this world as judgment, so that those who are (spiritually) blind will be able to see (regeneration), and those who claim to see, as the Pharisees had done, will be proven blind. This was to what the Pharisees were responding to, and what affected Christ’s train of thought. To the Pharisees, it was an insult to be called spiritually blind (as they had called the blind man; v. 34). Christ’s point was that their guilt rested in the fact that they claimed to see, and yet were blind. Christ’s statement regarding those who are blind was not a passing of guilt over those who don’t believe, but part of his indictment against the Pharisees. Also, again go back to verse 39 - their blindness was a judgment upon them from God, and the sight given to those who were formerly blind (as the man blind from birth was both physically and spiritually) was seen as God’s grace. And, like I said, if Christ were telling us here that people who aren’t believers are off the hook, that would not connect well with Paul’s point in Romans 1 regarding those who don’t believe, but are not off the hook because the evidence of God is there for them.

The issue we are facing is that you are honing in on one phrase - half a sentence - and not looking at the circumstances around it, thus misunderstanding the context. The emphasis is on the wrong syllable, as they say.

 

[fbl9]

What I said, if you study my words carefully, was that in the context of what Christ was talking about, the guilt of the Pharisees was in claiming to see, but in fact were blind. I also stressed that verse 39 was important, because Christ, after proving the regeneration and faith of the man born (physically) blind, was stating that he had come into this world as judgment, so that those who are (spiritually) blind will be able to see (regeneration), and those who claim to see, as the Pharisees had done, will be proven blind. This was to what the Pharisees were responding to, and what affected Christ’s train of thought. To the Pharisees, it was an insult to be called spiritually blind (as they had called the blind man; v. 34). Christ’s point was that their guilt rested in the fact that they claimed to see, and yet were blind. Christ’s statement regarding those who are blind was not a passing of guilt over those who don’t believe, but part of his indictment against the Pharisees. Also, again go back to verse 39 - their blindness was a judgment upon them from God, and the sight given to those who were formerly blind (as the man blind from birth was both physically and spiritually) was seen as God’s grace. And, like I said, if Christ were telling us here that people who aren’t believers are off the hook, that would not connect well with Paul’s point in Romans 1 regarding those who don’t believe, but are not off the hook because the evidence of God is there for them.

The issue we are facing is that you are honing in on one phrase - half a sentence - and not looking at the circumstances around it, thus misunderstanding the context. The emphasis is on the wrong syllable, as they say.

use as many words as you wish you still state that Christ’s words are false.I know well whom Christ is talking to , the same men whom St.Paul says God’s wrath is stored up for.
In the gospels God is against those that lead astray but not against those led astray.
Now did Christ’s coming blind all? Nope cause we know that many were awaiting Him, including high priests. Christ did not judge those He was speaking to on the spot. They were already judged in the words of the prophet Isias6:9-10.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

use as many words as you wish you still state that Christ’s words are false.I know well whom Christ is talking to , the same men whom St.Paul says God’s wrath is stored up for.

No where did I say Christ’s words are false, and I have explained my point ad nauseum by now. Also, I asked you earlier to demonstrate that (“the same men whom St.Paul says God’s wrath is stored up for”). Can you please show me how Paul is saying it’s leaders he’s talking about in Romans 1?

In the gospels God is against those that lead astray but not against those led astray.

Actually, scripture often says those who lead astray are judgment upon those who are led astray.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions [2 Ti 4:3]

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. [2 Th 2:9-12]

Now did Christ’s coming blind all? Nope cause we know that many were awaiting Him, including high priests. Christ did not judge those He was speaking to on the spot. They were already judged in the words of the prophet Isias6:9-10.

And yet Christ, in verse 39, says that he came in judgment so that the blind would be given sight and the seeing would be made blind, and tells the Pharisees they are blind. That sounds like judgment being placed upon them. That compliments with your citation of Isa 6:9-10.