Can Unregenerate Man "Do" any Righteous Thing?

[Luke2427]

I disagree that pre-faith regeneration is as clear as the trinity and the deity of Christ. True believers don't disagree on the latter two as there is clear Scripture on those topics, but the vast majority of true believers do not agree with you on pre-faith regeneration.

True believers disagree on abstinence or moderate use.

The Bible is clear that God does not require abstinence.

This is just one of many things that are clear in scripture that have to be debated because some believers have faulty presuppositions they bring to the Bible that cloud their perspective.

A faulty presupposition that I carried and that you still carry TO the Scriptures along the lines of what we are talking about is that regeneration and salvation are the same thing and that the new birth is just a synonym for salvation.

The Bible does not teach that but we see it that way through faulty lenses.

 

[webdog]

We've been doing well, Webdog. It is this kind of snotty remark that causes trouble between you and I.

When we go to using laugh symbols as we laugh at each other as if the other is stupid and laughable- it causes problems.

Let's keep a positive streak going, huh?

I'm sorry if I offended you, it was a play on reformed, dry humor.

Now, is this any different that what Preacher4truth has been doing...and why hasn't anyone reprimanded his actions? Don't let this be a one way street, now

 

[webdog]

True believers disagree on abstinence or moderate use.

The Bible is clear that God does not require abstinence.

This is just one of many things that are clear in scripture that have to be debated because some believers have faulty presuppositions they bring to the Bible that cloud their perspective.

A faulty presupposition that I carried and that you still carry TO the Scriptures along the lines of what we are talking about is that regeneration and salvation are the same thing and that the new birth is just a synonym for salvation.

The Bible does not teach that but we see it that way through faulty lenses.

Actually, the Bible does require abstinence in places and at times, but that's a rabbit trail in itself. The fact is, even abstinence is not as clear cut as the trinity and Christ's deity.

I would also like to note I believe the "faulty lens" is pre-faith regeneration that is derived from the logic of TULIP and from being read into Scripture, and not vice versa.

 

[R. Lawson]

There are all kinds of things that are very clear that have been debated for centuries.

The Trinity is clear but it has been debated for nearly two thousand years.

The Trinity isn't as "clear" as you think. Yes, it's clear to us, but for the Church Fathers onward the Trinity was not articulated as you and I think of it. Most would call the Fathers heretical for their thoughts on the Trinity.

You might want to check out Roger Olson's book on the Trinity.:thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

I have shown them to you numerous times before and will gladly do so again if you will commit to respond to my posts line by line.

What happens with you winman is we refute your positions and you never respond to our refutations.

You just disappear and come back in a day or so regurgitating the same crud that we have already shown to be false.

If you will stay in the pocket and respond line by line I will show you once again where the Bible clearly shows that regeneration precedes faith.

Just make the commitment and we'll get started.

You seem to think if I get all entangled with your arguments I will be convinced of your position. I don't need your arguments nor the twisted anti-logic of your Cal/DoG "scholars", I trust what the scriptures clearly and simply say, and they say a man must believe to have life.

 

[DHK]

This is just one of many things that are clear in scripture that have to be debated because some believers have faulty presuppositions they bring to the Bible that cloud their perspective.

A faulty presupposition that I carried and that you still carry TO the Scriptures along the lines of what we are talking about is that regeneration and salvation are the same thing and that the new birth is just a synonym for salvation.

The Bible does not teach that but we see it that way through faulty lenses.

Perhaps the lens that you now see through is faulty, and that you saw more clearly before. Is that not possible? Perhaps your thinking has been tainted by the listening and reading of other men's opinions on this subject, and that you could be entirely wrong. It is a very debatable subject to say the very least. You ought to give consideration to at least the thought that you could be wrong.

I may be wrong, but I believe if a poll were taken among all the pastors on this board there would be more that disagree with you than agree with you. And they all can't be wrong.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm sorry if I offended you, it was a play on reformed, dry humor.

Now, is this any different that what Preacher4truth has been doing...and why hasn't anyone reprimanded his actions? Don't let this be a one way street, now

I have. Ask him. I sent him several pm's recommending he chill.

Did you get him when he was attacking me so vehemently when he first joined up?

I don't care if you didn't, btw. That was in the past and I hope the past is behind us.:godisgood:

 

[Luke2427]

You seem to think if I get all entangled with your arguments I will be convinced of your position. I don't need your arguments nor the twisted anti-logic of your Cal/DoG "scholars", I trust what the scriptures clearly and simply say, and they say a man must believe to have life.

So then you will NOT commit to respond line by line, right?

 

[Luke2427]

The Trinity isn't as "clear" as you think. Yes, it's clear to us, but for the Church Fathers onward the Trinity was not articulated as you and I think of it. Most would call the Fathers heretical for their thoughts on the Trinity.

You might want to check out Roger Olson's book on the Trinity.:thumbsup:

I am familiar with it and I agree. The Trinity is a complex issue.

But that there is one God who exists in three persons can be clearly established.

But you are right, perhaps the Trinity was not the best item to illustrate my point since the church hotly debated it up to the Nicene Council where Arius was narrowly condemned for heresy.

 

[Winman]

So then you will NOT commit to respond line by line, right?

Were you an only child?

 

[Jarthur001]

The Trinity isn't as "clear" as you think. Yes, it's clear to us, but for the Church Fathers onward the Trinity was not articulated as you and I think of it. Most would call the Fathers heretical for their thoughts on the Trinity.

You might want to check out Roger Olson's book on the Trinity.:thumbsup:

I have not read that book, but I have read Roger Olson before and he is a POOR writer. If you check out his footnotes, they are bogus at best.

Again, maybe he has done better with this book, but from what I read he is laughable.

 

[Luke2427]

Were you an only child?

I will answer that question if you will commit to debate me line by line.

Stop avoiding the challenge. Be a man and say yes or no.

If you say "no" you will not have to worry about me anymore because I am not going to waste my time posting to you without any response to my arguments at all.

No intelligent person debates that way.[/quote]

 

[DHK]

I will answer that question if you will commit to debate me line by line.

Stop avoiding the challenge. Be a man and say yes or no.

If you say "no" you will not have to worry about me anymore because I am not going to waste my time posting to you without any response to my arguments at all.

No intelligent person debates that way.

You are correct this time.

Winman, needs to stick with the OP and stop with inane remarks, as do we all.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

There is no contradiction. When you see "as it is written", you need to go back and to see what is being referred to. Which Psalm was Paul referring to, and who were those from that Psalm who didn't seek God?

The context speaks for itself...

9What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:

What is written in the Psalms is being brought into the light of the Gospel by this God inspired new testament writer. The Psalm quote is interpreted in light of the New not the Old testament. BTW this is why most arminians miss Romans 9.

Not when you put it into the context Paul intended. You can interpret the Bible through that one verse, or you can put that verse in context and let Bible explain Bible.
Actually, that passage speaks of man rejecting the truth that has been given to him. They exchanged the truth God gave them for a lie, they had and knew the truth but they rejected it. To reject anything means the option of acceptance exists, or it's not rejection by definition.

More than 1 verse was used.
Paul is establishing in Romans 1 and 2 all are without excuse in condemnation.

Why? Because when mankind knew God they would not give God glory neither where thankful. The latter verses of this chapter is a vivid description of the fall of man that is marching progressively onward.

Romans 1 has nothing to do with acceptance of God, and everything to do with rejection of God.

Are you proposing that man has an innate ability to accept God? Or is the fall and resulting influence all that is in view here.

First, it's Acts, not Romans

Thank you for your sharp eye as to this gross mistake. I apologize if I caused you to search Romans for my exegesis.

Second, you added the "who are sought" to the truth of that passage. Who was Paul speaking to? Pagans, not the "elect". Some accepted the truth, some rejected it. If you claim they were all "elect" you have problems with those who rejected the truth.

Surely you would agree that God "determined" every aspect of that day at Mars Hill. The Message, the messenger, and those listening to the message.

However, I concede that one cannot make a solid case from Acts 17 for election. But it is equally problematic to use this sermon to say unregenerate man can seek God.

Paul is preaching not giving a systematic theology lesson. He does not know who the elect are any more than I do. Therefore as he did so do I, that is call all who are listening to Christ. All who can hear will hear.

Paul was giving truth to everyone who was there, not just those who accepted. The truth is each and everyone of them was placed in the exact location and place in time to seek God. There is no "perhaps reaching out and finding" God if your doctrine is correct. For Paul to say such would be foolishness if he is only speaking of the "elect".

First and second sentence true.

Regeneration is an act of the Holy Spirit not an act of man, but after man is given life he "feels" that he is feeling after God.

If a person has passed from spiritual death to spiritual life, they are in union with God.

What is the alternative? Man seeking after God while he is spiritually dead! Romans 10:20 gives God's perspective.

Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
"I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me."

 

[Winman]

I will answer that question if you will commit to debate me line by line.

Stop avoiding the challenge. Be a man and say yes or no.

If you say "no" you will not have to worry about me anymore because I am not going to waste my time posting to you without any response to my arguments at all.

No intelligent person debates that way.

[/QUOTE]

If you will limit your questions to one at a time, and agree to answer one question I ask you in return, I agree.

Deal?

If so, ask you first question.

 

[Luke2427]

The context speaks for itself...

9What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:

What is written in the Psalms is being brought into the light of the Gospel by this God inspired new testament writer. The Psalm quote is interpreted in light of the New not the Old testament. BTW this is why most arminians miss Romans 9.



More than 1 verse was used.
Paul is establishing in Romans 1 and 2 all are without excuse in condemnation.

This is exactly right. The whole POINT of these three chapters is to conclude the whole world head for head, Jews and Gentiles under sin.

If Romans 3 does not teach that NO PERSON does good and that EVERY SINGLE person is a sinner then it is hard to justify the need for salvation.

Paul is clearly making an argument that every single individual is thoroughly wicked.

Why? Because when mankind knew God they would not give God glory neither where thankful. The latter verses of this chapter is a vivid description of the fall of man that is marching progressively onward.

Romans 1 has nothing to do with acceptance of God, and everything to do with rejection of God.

Are you proposing that man has an innate ability to accept God? Or is the fall and resulting influence all that is in view here.




Thank you for your sharp eye as to this gross mistake. I apologize if I caused you to search Romans for my exegesis.



Surely you would agree that God "determined" every aspect of that day at Mars Hill. The Message, the messenger, and those listening to the message.

However, I concede that one cannot make a solid case from Acts 17 for election. But it is equally problematic to use this sermon to say unregenerate man can seek God.

Right. It is like the argument that some use which says, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost" SEE!! Calvinism is false!

No. Just because the Bible says that some seek after God does not mean that they were not regenerate who sought Him. Nor does it mean that all who do "seek him" are really seeking him.

Paul is preaching not giving a systematic theology lesson. He does not know who the elect are any more than I do. Therefore as he did so do I, that is call all who are listening to Christ. All who can hear will hear.



First and second sentence true.

Regeneration is an act of the Holy Spirit not an act of man, but after man is given life he "feels" that he is feeling after God.

Exactly.

What is the alternative? Man seeking after God while he is spiritually dead! Romans 10:20 gives God's perspective.

Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
"I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me."

Good passage.

Who found him? Those who did not seek him.

Those who do seek him tend to be the ones who do NOT find him.

But seek here I mean a superficial seeking of him.

The Pharisees "sought" him and never found him.

But the fact of the matter is that they were not seeking the one true God.

 

[Winman]

I will answer that question if you will commit to debate me line by line.

Stop avoiding the challenge. Be a man and say yes or no.

If you say "no" you will not have to worry about me anymore because I am not going to waste my time posting to you without any response to my arguments at all.

No intelligent person debates that way.

[/QUOTE]

If you will limit yourself to asking one question per post AND agree to answer one question I ask you per post in return, then I agree.

Deal?

If so, ask your first question.

 

[Luke2427]

If you will limit your questions to one at a time, and agree to answer one question I ask you in return, I agree.

Deal?

If so, ask you first question.

John 20:31 is a passage you like to use to prove that faith precedes regeneration.

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

I contend that this verse does NOT necessitate faith before regeneration.

A baby lives before it breathes but it must breathe in order to live.

That is all this verse is saying. Faith is necessary for spiritual life. That by believing you might have life- that by breathing the baby might have life.

If breath is necessary for continue life yet life preceded breath why can not believing be necessary for continued spiritual life yet spiritual life preceded believing?

 

[slave 4 Christ]

What? In John 2 people saw the miracles that Jesus did and believed. Jesus did not commit himself to "hang around" with these people because he didn't need their testimony to go about his work.

There is nothing in John 2 that says Jesus rejected the belief of these people. He rejected the need for them to testify about him.

Read John 2:25 again,
23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. 24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

Needed no one to bear witness of man, nothing in this text even remotely suggests what you are saying.

BTW Check out John 6:60-66 same group as John 2:23-25.

Look at your argument. It is full of 'therefore' and 'the next logical thing' and 'hence'. It's complicated and full of human reasoning. The gospel isn't that difficult.

Absolutely it is difficult to understand.

You said it is easy to understand.

I suppose you are more learned than Nicodemus.
9 Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" 10Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?

In the case of Nicodemus, are you saying that he was regenerated? If so, he must have received the Holy Spirit, correct?

No, I never said that, although there is good evidence that he did come to Christ at some point.

 

[Luke2427]

Read John 2:25 again,
23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. 24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

Needed no one to bear witness of man, nothing in this text even remotely suggests what you are saying.

BTW Check out John 6:60-66 same group as John 2:23-25.



Absolutely it is difficult to understand.

You said it is easy to understand.

I suppose you are more learned than Nicodemus.
9 Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" 10Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?



No, I never said that, although there is good evidence that he did come to Christ at some point.

It is SO complicated that NO man can understand it in his natural state.

That God became a man and bore the sins of many of all ages in six hours upon a cross and can impute his own righteousness from that cross to his own people and make them fit for Heaven- that is a tremendously complicated issue!