Now you're simply making things up to fit your theology.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can Unregenerate Man "Do" any Righteous Thing?
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
- Status
Now you're simply making things up to fit your theology.
This post is not helpful.
I don't mind you disagreeing but make a case for your claim.
Otherwise this is nothing more than a drive by post.
It is worthless, has no value and is meant to do nothing but inflame.
I am not making up anything.
I have shown from the Word of God that this MUST be the case.
Make an argument, respond to an argument or don't post, please. This is a debate site not a drive by posting site.
Prove your point or don't make one, please.
You haven't shown anything. You just keep repeating that you have shown it. You keep saying regeneration enables belief as if you have proved it.
The fact is there is nothing in scripture that says the Philipian jailer was regenerated before he believed. There is nothing to indicate ANYONE was regenerated before they believed.
You keep quoting passages from Ezekiel to show that God will replace a heart of stone with a new spirit yet fail to realize those verses are a promise to Israel. It's a promise that Israel will be restored one day. Just look at the chapter:
1 “And you, son of man, prophesy to the mountains of Israel, and say, ‘O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD!
4 therefore, O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD!
6 “Therefore prophesy concerning the land of Israel, and say to the mountains, the hills, the rivers, and the valleys, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD:
8 But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to My people Israel, for they are about to come.
12 Yes, I will cause men to walk on you, My people Israel; they shall take possession of you,
22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “
etc. etc. until we get to:
26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Your proof verse is out of context and directed at the wrong audience.
Actually I did. I reported many of his posts already, even when he first joined. Also did you see what InTheLight wrote about the 1 Corinthians passage we went back and forth on? I'm not as alone on that passage as you (and P4T) thought I was...
1 Cor. 2:14 refers to spiritual truths that unsaved people cannot understand. Once we receive the Holy Spirit we can discern doctrine and know more about the things God gives us (v. 12)
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, the scriptures ABOUND with examples of the subtleties of humble and contrite hearts; 'you people' [free willers] blind yourselves to them.
I have given numerous Scriptures to the guys I am talking to about this many times before.
I will give you some now.
I John 5:1-Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.
"has been" indicates that what happens now follows what happened in the past.
Everyone wearing a red sash HAS BEEN inducted into the Cowboy Gang.
The wearing of the red sash FOLLOWS the induction into the gang.
Everyone who believes HAS BEEN born of God.
Believing FOLLOWS being born of God.
One is born of God BEFORE he believes. That he believes is PROOF that he HAS BEEN born of God.
I'll let you deal with that one and then I bring another and let you deal with it and then another and another, etc... in this fashion.
Actually I did. I reported many of his posts already, even when he first joined. Also did you see what InTheLight wrote about the 1 Corinthians passage we went back and forth on? I'm not as alone on that passage as you (and P4T) thought I was...
1 Cor. 2:14 refers to spiritual truths that unsaved people cannot understand. Once we receive the Holy Spirit we can discern doctrine and know more about the things God gives us (v. 12)
:thumbsup:
The Gospel is most certainly something that is of the Spirit of God. The Gospel is the EXACT thing that Paul is talking about in I Corinthians 2 when he said the natural man cannot receive it.
In chapter 2 Paul is talking about his spirit anointed message that it was not given in the power of the flesh but in the power of the Spirit.
He calls it in verse 1- the testimony of God
In verse 2 he speaks of the subject matter that singularly consumed his message- Jesus Christ and him crucified.
In verse 4 still talking about that same Gospel message he tells them his proclamation of it was not in enticing words of man's wisdom but in power and demonstration of the Spirit.
This message is called the wisdom of God in verses, 6, 7 and 8.
He follows this same topic through verse 13 where he says, "Which things we also speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual"
Still talking about the Gospel, the testimony of God, Jesus Christ and him crucified, the wisdom of God he says in verse 14
"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him; NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned."
This is the Gospel which natural man CANNOT know nor receive.
Paul had already said this very thing earlier using the same language in 1:18
It is PLAINLY the Gospel of the cross, Jesus Christ and him crucified which is the wisdom of God that Paul is saying that the natural man CANNOT receive.
The natural man has a God given conscience, knowing right from wrong. God has also revealed to all men that He is creator. They know but they refuse to submit."The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him; NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned."
This is the Gospel which natural man CANNOT know nor receive.
Paul had already said this very thing earlier using the same language in 1:18
It is PLAINLY the Gospel of the cross, Jesus Christ and him crucified which is the wisdom of God that Paul is saying that the natural man CANNOT receive.
When the gospel comes to the unbeliever, he already knows right from wrong (accountability) and he knows there is a creator, therefore through the gospel he can understand that he has sinned against a Holy God and that Christ took his punishment for his sins.
Romans 1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse:
I'm sorry, but you cannot dismiss the context of the OT passage that Paul is specifically referring to. In actuality, this is why most calvinists miss Romans 9-11
I'm not sure you answered the question...who were those in the Psalm Paul was referring to?
Wait...how can unregenerate man know not only the true God, but His glory? How can a corpse exchange anything? I don't recall seeing any zombies exchanging gifts the day after Christmas
By the very definition of rejection, acceptance is an option! You have redefined what the very meaning of rejection is!
I'm not saying that at all. Man can not just up on his own seek God. God has to give him what is needed to do that. Where we disagree (and has been the disagreement for centuries) is who is given what is needed. I refer to the conscience, creation, location and time born, and the desire to live eternally being place in each man for my view.
No need to apologize, I didn't want the reader to be confused.
I wouldn't. To do so would mean every act of lust, lie, hate, etc. committed on Mars Hill was also determined by God. I believe, like Paul said, that each person was there in the exact location and time by design and for the very purpose he outlined in chapter 17...to seek God and "perhaps" reach out and fine Him.
You didn't answer this...how can "perhaps" even be in the equation when it was determined?
I disagree. I think it's a great passage to counter the "what about those who never heard the Gospel" crowd.
This has to be read into the text with a presupposition already in place. Paul was telling pagans about the one true God...to everyone. He was not throwing the message out there knowing the predetermined "elect" would hear and the rest would not. That is interpreting Scripture through the lens of theology.
Curious how the second sentence be true where I stated...
"The truth is each and everyone of them was placed in the exact location and place in time to seek God."
...if the unregenerate cannot seek God?
I agree regeneration is an act of the Spirit, and know of no non reformed person who believes otherwise, but for your position to be true the "perhaps reach out and find Him although He is not far from each one of us (Paul and the crowd he was speaking to which included those who accepted and rejected) would need to be absent from that text, as it is a given those regenerated WILL come to, not PERHAPS come. Also the greek for that passage has almost a groping around in the dark / feeling your way around tone to it.
Spiritually dead is not the same as physically dead. Being separated doesn't = unable, as Paul proves from Acts 17. The perspective you speak of in Romans 10 and Isaiah are the gentiles, and many reformed and non alike allude to that fact.
Last edited by a moderator:
You didn't say a word about my pointing out the verses in Ezekiel 36 regarding creating a new heart out of stone pertain to prophecies about Israel and not regenerating the hearts of unbelievers.
slave 4 Christ
New Member
I'm sorry, but you cannot dismiss the context of the OT passage that Paul is specifically referring to. In actuality, this is why most calvinists miss Romans 9-11
I am not dismissing the OT context. The OT context is understood in the Superior LIGHT of the NT, not vice versa. What your contending is the OT must interpret the NT. That is a faulty hermeneutic.
But even so Psalm 14 says,
1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.
2 The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.
Romans 1:21-32 is a description of the fall of man and its ongoing result. Adam caused physical and spiritual death in Eden. It was there the exchange took place. You might argue "Adam is singular, it was they who exchanged the truth for a lie".
All men are held accountable for the exchange that took place in Adam, so that it is rightly said "they".
If the very definition of rejection also includes acceptance as an option, then man can take God or leave Him at will.
You have correctly stated "Man can not just up on his own seek God. God has to give him what is needed to do that." And since this is true, man will only reject, never accept, God; until the Spirit of God acts upon the man.
I do not deny that all of these are a part of God's predetermined salvation of a man. What I do deny is that is all God does.
How can a man come to Christ with a conscience as Paul describes in Romans 8:6-8?
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (NASB)
Conscience, ie. with knowledge, takes place in the mind. The mind is the tool to gain knowledge. But in man's fleshly unregenerate state he cannot, is not able to summit himself to God. He is indeed the enemy of God. Therefore, only a supernatural new birth from above can change this fact.
I John 5:1
1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God....(ESV)
"...has been born" is precedent to "believes".
Determined by God? YES, but not done by Him.
23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
God decreed it, man did it.
Here in Acts 17 Paul is preaching. For example," ....You are not here by accident today for the sovereign God of creation has planted you here and brought you here at just the right time to hear this message of Christ. Do you "feel" Him speaking to you. Do you have any desire to seek Him. If so come to this altar of Grace today. For today is the day of salvation."
This is preaching! It is what you do. It is what I do. It is what every Gospel preacher should do. The preacher calls outwardly " if perhaps you can "grope" after God". The Spirit calls inwardly to some "come to Christ", and they come.
Our responsibility is the outward call.
Your Theology, what the scripture says about God, is your hermeneutic.
I don't see how you could interpret scripture any other way.
I must know God(Theology), to understand what God does(soteriology).
IS TO!
If you give a point of debate it is your responsibility to prove it.
Again Paul is not proving anything. He is outwardly calling men to Christ.
So what. Nobody ever sought God unless He sought them.
Are all the Jews true Israel. No
Do all the gentiles make up His Church. No
What God decrees corporately, He effects individually.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Everyone has to love this reply.
That is a poor hermeneutic. The OT establishes the meaning, the NT never contradicts. "The Fool" is who is being referred to, not all mankind. Scripture tells us exactly who the fool is...the one who says in his heart there is no God...AFTER having received the truths presented by God.
Thanks, but that didn't answer the question. How can the unregenerate know the true God and His glory? Later on you claim spiritual death is to be compared to physical death, and I will touch on that, but since you have stated such, the burden of proof is on you to show how this dilemma can be.
Now you are starting to get it (not the "at will" apart from God, but based on the truths He gives us)
Again, I don't define the words, I let the words explain themselves1re·ject
verb \ri-ˈjekt\
Definition of REJECT
transitive verb
1
a : to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use <rejected the suggestion> <reject a manuscript> b : to refuse to hear, receive, or admit : rebuff, repel <parents who reject their children>
...then man is not truly rejecting based on the very meaning of the word, and yet is being held accountable for it
I didn't say that is all God does, but based on these truths God has given us all, God will reveal more. If the fool has said there is no God, He has rejected the truths he was born with and will die in his sin. God is not obligated to present any further truth to him.
If something has been determined, it has been done.
I understand that is how you see it, but I believe it to be wrong. These pagans had an "unknown god" and Paul was using their polytheism to preach the Gospel to them ALL. If he were only preaching to the "elect", his words would have been lies to those who were not. Do you believe we should lie to the non-elect?
One way is to allow for tensions in Scripture while not trying to fit them into our theology. Every place we see God reacting to man, allowing freedom, etc. we shouldn't automatically interpret the majority of Scripture through a handful that "might" be alluding to something, but then again might not be.
First, you cannot prove a negative, and second, you are the one who alluded to this notion in your last post. Romans 6:2 says we are dead to sin, so I guess according to the "dead is dead" theory we are unable to sin?
yes, and telling them what God has done for them in the process (all of them).
If you don't care about context, then you cannot tell me it is speaking of unbelievers.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
While the Bible does not contradict itself, obviously, it does shed different light on Old Testament passages in the New Testament.
For instance: Many of the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament had an immediate meaning to those hearers but the ultimate meaning and fulfillment is seen in the New Testament.
So, it does not follow that what something meant in the Old Testament must mean the same thing in the New. Many writers attach new meaning to Old Testament passages--thereby showing their ultimate meaning and, in the case of prophecy, their ultimate fulfillment.
The Archangel
quantumfaith
Active Member
If my long ago Bible College knowledge is correct, we call that a duble entendre, we should take extreme caution when citing duble entendres when that temptation comes. Sorry, I did have a point, but I lost it while typing.
Answer- Luke, I'm sorry, but your position here is utterly nonsensical and unscriptural. You cannot be regenerated, spiritually alive and be lost and spiritually dead at the same moment, this is an impossibility. The Philipian had to be unregenerate when he burst in and asked how to be saved because he had not yet believed on Jesus. And until you believe you are spiritually dead in sins. Nothing you have shown has said a person must be regenerated to have the ability to believe. You are reading into scripture what it does not say.
Question- Can an unrighteous person have spiritual life?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
Oh brothers!!! :BangHead:
Never in my days have I ever heard this before by any believer.
I guess you never heard what has been concealed in the Old Testament, is revealed in the New.
Or...
the New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old is in the New revealed.
or this passage..
1 cor 13...
9For our knowledge is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect), and our prophecy (our teaching) is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect). 10But when the complete and perfect (total) comes, the incomplete and imperfect will vanish away (become antiquated, void, and superseded).
or this passage Heb 12......
24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
My oh my...
Last edited by a moderator:
I've heard plenty of things, don't run with scissors, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and on and on...
Haven't you heard "when it says 'as it is written' go back to see 'as it was written'"?
There was nothing "concealed" by what was written in the Psalm.
Isn't that the very thing you also say about viewing Romans 9-11 pertaining to individuals, and not Israel?
If you never heard the OT establishes the meaning when you read in the NT "as it is written..." you need to get out more.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Of couse, and then the NT wrtier TELLS THE MEANING!!!
Paull tells us the meaning of the quote. You can add more light, but the true meaning that Paul wants to leave us, is found in the words Paul writes.
CONTEXT
CONTEXT
Jarthur001
Active Member
And................
Scripture tells us.
or this passage Heb 12......
24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Scripture tells us.
or this passage Heb 12......
24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
- Status