Galatians 5 questions (rest of chapter)

[jlkoch]

Brothers,

I had a bunch of questions from chapter 5. (25 of them!)
Please pick and choose the ones that you clearly understand the
question and it provokes a useful line of thought as you articulate
the answer. (You have seen 1-12 in an earlier email.)

Blessings!
Justin

Galatians 5:1-26
1) Paul begins the chapter with a "therefore." What's the "therefore"
there for? What has he just finished saying that he now turns the
corner and say, "Given what I just concluded, I now direct you to
stand in liberty." What has he just concluded?

2) What is the liberty of which Paul speaks? To what has Christ made
them free? What rights or freedoms do they have now that they would
not have under the yoke of bondage?

3) What are the elements of being under the yoke of bondage? How do
you get there and what's it look like once you're there?

4) Why and How does Christ become ineffective (of no effect)? What's
the process? What's the end? Why does he even state this to the
Galatian believers?

5) In 4:10, Paul declares their violation (something they actually
were doing); in chapter 5 is he doing the same or just warning them
against the possibility of pursuing justification by the law to the
extent of being circumcised?

6) In 5:5 why is the Spirit needed in order to wait for justification
by faith? Why wait? Isn't it already complete?

7) In 5:6 he concludes that, in Jesus Christ, only faith makes a
difference (opposed to circumcisn.) Why does he add to faith the
fhrase "which works by love?"

8) In 5:7 he states that under the hindrance of ungodly men, they have
not obeyed the truth. How did obedience enter into the mix? What did
they fail to do that they were asked to do? Why the use of "obey"
rather than "believe?"

9) In 5:10 he expresses confidence in them through the Lord. How does
that compare with 3: 1 &3, 4:11

10) In other instances Paul addresses perpetrators by name (i.e. -
2Tim 2:16-18). Why does he not here? Did he not know the specific men
responsible?

11) Having addressed the false notion that he was still teaching the
necessity of circumcisn for salvation, how did he substantiate the
ridiculousness of such a claim? What does the offensiveness of the
cross have to do with it?

12) If you were to construct a sentence on the relevance of Gal 5:1-12
in 2009, what would it look like? What real problems are present to
day that Paul wrestled with back then? What would be the condensed
statement of the problem and the applicable solution?

13) Similar to question 2, what is the liberty in vs 13 he speaks
about? Different or same? What can we use by Paul's exhortation to use
it correctly? What roles do the flesh and love play in this action or
choice?

14) In vs. 15 what is he getting at? What level of conflict does he
conceded and what level of conflict does he warn against? How do these
two levels of conflict look in 2009?

15) Paul contrast two influences that every believer experiences:
flesh and the Spirit. In short, what does he conclude about the two?
How do each lend themselves to influence someone to either service
(selfless) or slavery (under law)?

16) As Paul lists the works (practices) of the flesh, how do these
relate to the believers to which he writes? Is it a general statement
of all mankind? What's the purpose for this list or the context of the
point he is making?

17) If people doing these fail to inherit the kingdom does this refer
to the inheritance of which he spoke in earlier chapters? Or is this a
statement only relevant for believers?

18) He contrasts these "works" to the "fruit" of the Holy Spirit.
What's the difference between works and fruit?

19) What are the directives (You do this!) of chapter 5? Are there any
up to this point in earlier chapters? What causes the shift? Based on
what he tells them to DO, how does that influence your understanding
of the context for chapter 5? What has he stated to be true up til now
and why is it appropriate that he would now begin with exhortations to
action?

20) In vs 13, he declares their liberty and then cautions them with an
exhortation (to do) and a warning (what not to do). What does that
look like today? What does it look like for a believer standing in
liberty to use that liberty as an occasion to the flesh? Why would you
need that liberty to be able to serve others in love?
21) In vs 24, he hails back to the crucifixion and the believer's
participation in that event. What is the purpose of that reference in
this context?

22) What is Paul's larger purpose for contrasting the works of the
flesh with the fruit of the Spirit? How does that support his larger
argument and what central point is he making/defending in the
contrast?

23) Paul refers to the Holy Spirit many times through this chapter?
What foundation has he built thus far on the Holy SPirit and what role
does he play as outlined in this chapter?

24) Do you relate to the battle in v17? What truth from Galatians
would you take away for yourself or counsel to others?

25) In vs 26 he brings up interpersonal conflict again. Who was in
conflict in that context and how does it apply in 2009?

[Justin Koch]

Here is a .doc format if you prefer.

Justin

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.115/2403 - Release Date:
09/29/09 17:56:00

[Justin Koch]

Brothers,

Here is a recap of responsibilities for this coming week.

Jeremy - Host
Neil - Facilitator
Traever - Scribe.

Thanks in advance to each of you for your part.

Blessings!
Justin


Date Text Host Facilitator Scribe
9-Jul Whole Book; Context Gateway Woods Mark Herrmann Luke
Knapp
23-Jul Gal 1:1-10 Neil Gerber Mark Herrmann Luke Knapp
6-Aug Gal 1:11-2:10 Mark Herrmann Mark Herrmann Luke Knapp
20-Aug Gal 2:11-21 Justin Koch Brian Sutter John Eisenmann
3-Sep Gal 3:1-14 Traever Guingerich Brian Sutter John
Eisenmann
17-Sep Gal 3:15-4:7 Byron Schrock Luke Knapp Andrew Musselman
1-Oct Gal 4:8-31 Brian Sutter Luke Knapp Andrew Musselman
15-Oct Gal 5:1-26 Jeremy Hodel Neil Gerber Traever
Guingerich
29-Oct Gal 6:1-18 Logan Hangartner Jeremy Hodel Logan
Hangartner
12-Nov Whole Book: Summary Justin Koch Jeremy Hodel Logan
Hangartner

Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.14.13/2432 - Release Date:
10/13/09 06:35:00

[traever guingrich]

i didn't necessarily have a problem with any particular question but i had to pick some to be removed simply for the purpose of not having too many i would pick 6, 7, 10, 16, 19, 21. #6 seems like the wording of waiting for "justification" could make it sound as if we are not currently justified and at peace with God. all the versions i looked at said "hope of righteousness" or something along those lines involving righteousness and not justification. it could confuse different elements of salvation that are not equivalent or co-extensive. #10 i thought might force us into speculation. interesting discussion perhaps though. the rest i thought would be sufficiently covered by answering the other questions. just my thoughts. no strong feelings on them. also, i know we will unavoidably address this in the study but seeing the varying state of beliefs amongst us we might as well have a question regarding "falling from grace" in verse 4 and if paul is telling them they had personal salvation and now have lost it. (but don't worry if it gets confusing because i checked the back of the book and i know the answer) --- On Mon, 10/12/09, jlkoch <jlko...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: jlkoch <jlko...@gmail.com> Subject: Galatians 5 questions (rest of chapter)

[Luke Knapp]

It's nice to have someone in the group who has the answer key in case things get too difficult for us.

--
http://lrknapp99.blogspot.com

[traever guingrich]

there is another great inconsistency that came to mind while thinking about the preservation of the saints. if predestination and election are based on God looking into the future to see if a person will have faith, and He predestines, calls, justifies, and glorifies that person as romans 8 says He does- then wouldn't those people who "leave the faith" never have been justified, and thus saved, because God had seen their apostasy when looking into the future?

[J BYRON SCHROCK]

Traever:  You get an A for hard work trying to make all the verses cram into the Calvin grid.  I think some day God will reveal a grid where all verses, which from our viewpoint seem to be in conflict will be understood and there will be no questions and all of scripture will be acknowledged to be perfect, inerrant and beautiful, whether written early by Paul or later by Paul.  Byron

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Galatians Bible Study" group.
To post to this group, send email to galatians-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to galatians-bible-...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/galatians-bible-study?hl=.

[traever guingrich]

the "calvin grid" you speak of is really just a monergistic presupposition. but i did not come to scripture with this in mind. in fact, it was just the opposite. i came to scripture with a synergistic presupposition because that is the framework/tradition within which both you and i were raised. however, i had it broken down and corrected by the word itself. monergistic understanding of salvation is completely bible-derived. i am not forced to "cram" any verses into it. the real situation was that it was impossible for my to pry verses out of it and thus eventually had to change my mind based on the word. it needs to be acknowledged that an inerrant book like the bible cannot teach two mutually exclusive theories as true. it is a complete impossibility that salvation is both synergistic and monergistic. if our salvation is dependent even in the slightest fraction of a percent on our own doing, then it is not monergistic. monergistic means it's 100% God's work, anything less changes it to synergistic. the bible cannot teach both and be still be considered purely God's word. God did not intend to speak on salvation so pervasively through the bible and then expect it to be a "gray area" of understanding for us. we are not be confused on how we are saved. paul doesn't go to such great lengths detailing it for us to just view it as inconclusive and undefined as some in leadership would have us to believe. that is why i made that cd of romans 9 being exegeted for everyone. you can see as you listen to it how clear scripture truly is on the issue. if you, or justin, or ron, or any other leadership are willing to actually walk through these passages such as romans 8-9, ephesians 1-2, 1 peter 1, john 6, 3, 8, 10, 17 and explain how they don't mean exactly what they say then believe me when i say you have my ear and my attention. so far we have seen nothing but fleeing from such activities for the one reason that we all know- they cannot be explained by anyone holding to a synergistic presupposition. i could not even get ron to give me definitions for words like "foreknow". when the words used by scripture cannot even be defined by those trying to condemn a particular view then they are simply not to be trusted as knowledgeable enough on the subject. there are explanations, faithful to scripture and context, that explain why "arminian" sounding verses are being misinterpreted. this is the careful kind of study that christians need to partake in in order to hold to the inerrancy/infallibility of scripture. it is just silly for us to see surface level arguments and say it's both when we know that's impossible. it's the equivalent of saying God is both good and evil. that cannot be the case, it's just not possible. the only other alternative would be to come up with an entirely new, unique to history, interpretation of how salvation works. however, i hope you will agree with me that any new theory should be outright rejected for the simple fact that it is unique to history and to the universal church and would have been believed upon at some point in the past 2000 years. when the early church affirmed monergistic salvation to be true over against both pelagianism and semi-pelagianism (ancient arminianism), they were correct in their understanding of how God works in salvation. likewise, the VAST majority of the titans of the faith throughout history have sided together with the early church on this issue- salvation is 100% of the Lord. i understand how uncomfortable it is to have your perception of God challenged. i did not enjoy it when it happened to me. however, my desire to worship God in truth with my MIND, body, heart, and soul were motivation enough to drive me to definition of truth. i urge you, and any others, to not be satisfied with a murky view of scripture, a high view of man and his abilities, and a low view of God as sovereign in salvation. --- On Fri, 11/20/09, J BYRON SCHROCK <bsch...@mtco.com> wrote:

[Justin Koch]

Traever (and all the brothers in this group,)

 

Thanks for taking time to articulate your thoughts.  Marcia and I were at Starved Rock this weekend so I did not have the luxury of a regular keyboard, but only a phone.  Sufficient to read, but not suited for typing.  In any case, I chewed over this email a bit and have some thoughts that are both appropriate for the group and some personal that would be better suited for a face to face lunch or breakfast.

 

First to say, I have grown to appreciate the maturity of your handling of God's Word through our weeks of trudging/marching through the book of Galatians.  You are not sloppy and you have a teachable spirit.  For that I thank God, having known myself at that age when I was the "Shell answer man" who had lots of answers and not many questions. 

 

I had time yesterday to walk through Romans 8 and some of 9.  I was impressed how parallel Rom 6-8 is to Galatians 5:13-26.  In each case Paul is addressing the quandary of the flesh or the sin that battles in the life of a believer.  In each case he constructs the battle and difficulty, then uncovers the answer to be God's Spirit.  The unique branch taken in Romans (and not Galatians) has to do with suffering. (v17)   It is into that context of enduring suffering here on earth that Paul takes them down a tour of God's higher agenda.

 

What I would submit to the group is the question, "What is his main point that he is making in this passage of Rom 8?" I would also lay out the question, "What do you wish the passage would say?"  As I understand good hermeneutics, that bible college students are always asked to articulate their bias before analyzing a passage.  Thirdly, "What is he teaching in the context of the passage?"  It is not so important to know what he is saying as it is, what is he teaching.  What is on his heart and what point is he trying to drive home?

 

I have looked at Rom 8 and 1Pet1 somewhat rigorously and concluded that monergism is not the main point.  I need to revisist Eph 1-2 and would agree that it is more in that venue.  In any case, I only want to ask each of you to be faithful to the passages and  be firm/rigid only to the extent that the author is firm/rigid over the main point of which he is primarily teaching.  Let's keep focused on content with perspicuity.  What is abundantly clear and essential from the teaching of the passage?

 

Lastly, from a more personal perspective, I have been tentative in confronting/defending for two reasons.  The first is a need/desire to build some level of trust/respect relationship with each of you.  The Galatian Bible study has done that for which I am thankful.  The second is that I wanted to observe for a while if this was from God or the flesh.  I was touched by a Paul Washer "Ten Indictments) video some months back that the God is bringing revival through the younger generation.  It is easy for us to write off youth in all their apparent self-centered fleshiness as a group to be tolerated and endured rather than a vehicle God is using to bring needed change to the church. 

 

(A third reason is that I was intimidated by some of you guys and felt insecure in my own knowledge of the scriptures, but I'd rather not talk about that one.)

 

May we all maintain a gentle care for each other in the spirit of brotherhood (Gal 6)  as we traverse this ground and may we be personally tenacious in excavating the heart of passages and defending principles that were at the heart of the original author. 

 

Thankful for each of you,

Learning to love,

Justin

 

 

ps - Traever, what does your lunch schedule look like next week?

 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.14.73/2512 - Release Date: 11/18/09 19:41:00

[traever guingrich]

i appreciate the reply as always. i know there are some issues here that we may not see eye to eye on (not sure how much we actually disagree though) so i just want to reaffirm my love and respect for you right off the bat. there is one point i should clear up since i did not really make it in that previous email and that is that we are not trying to imply that monergistic salvation is the main point of all the passages i cited. indeed in many i will readily admit that is not the author's main point. however, that does not mean that it is not still being taught or at least directly referenced to make a point. a good example would be john 10:26 where a mere sliver from monergistic salvation is used. this text is still relevant to the discussion though. remember that chapter and verse are not part of the original manuscripts so while it may be safe to say an entire chapter is not making a singular point it would not mean that another point is not being directly taught in a chunk of scripture. the end of romans 8 and most of romans 9 are teaching about God's work in salvation. this is not even denied by synergists. it is, in my opinion, clearly monergistic and is clearly teaching predestination and election- so much so that most arminians don't even try to say it's not, they just want to redefine them and use foreknowledge as an out. there is a reason this text has been at the forefront of this debate since the 4th century. please please please listen to the exegesis of romans 9 i burnt on cd for everyone, it begins at the end of 8 and walks through 9. john 6 likewise has a good portion where Jesus is blatantly explaining salvation as monergistic. again, i would not try to claim this as the singular point to the entire chapter but the text is incredibly relevant to the discussion. portions of scripture like 1 peter and ephesians 1-2 still make these points clear but they are intended to buttress something else paul is saying. although i think there is a reason paul gives such a spotlight to God working alone in salvation in the first two chapters of ephesians. i would pose the counter question of where synergistic salvation is directly taught; where man's ability to chose God prior to regeneration is directly explained (not just implied). i'm always open for lunch/meeting. this is my last week working in bloomington so it probably would be inconvenient to do lunch this week, but any other time would work for me. also, i wasn't thinking less of you, or anyone, that was not directly responding to this. i agree with you on not confronting until one is aware of the true issues and beliefs in question. there are actually several discussions i have had to merely observe on (like eschatology, gifts, even a little nouthetic counseling) until i can get solid grounding on the topic. this one however i have spent countless hours on since being confronted with it so i can at least speak intelligently and opinionatedly on it. one of these two doctrines of salvation is actually taught in scripture and one is being read in. let’s not find a reason to write off the most important passages of scripture pertaining to this debate in an effort to remain neutral or undefined. words like predestined, elect, and foreknow are biblical words that have meanings. God did not intend for us to be ignorant of them; they can be biblically defined.   --- On Sun, 11/22/09, Justin Koch <jlk...@softhome.net> wrote: