Understanding Romans 8:5-9

:laugh: QF....I plead insanity...Vans posts drive me crazy:laugh:

Van can take it...instead of me attacking His posts directly...I thought that perhaps a "little lightness" might give him a reason to think through the issues some more.....

QF...are you saying I should stick to my day job:thumbs:

 

only the music that says saying "another one bites the dust!"

A Christian has been saved by God, now filled with His HS, but still is under complusion to chose to abide in christ, daily walk in HS, and thus NOT do the desires of the flesh/sin principle still within us...

Apostle just stating that depend upon wether we heed the flesh or the Sprit, will reap a spiritual harvest, some really good fruit, other rotton !

 

I don't see this condition of "unable" as either an airtight C or A argument.

I am totally and permanently unable to swim to Hawaii.
However if flown there via a DC-10 then I am able to go.

Salvation cannot be accomplished by human effort, we are unable.
Everyone knows that.

...Salvation is of the Lord.

The difference is: One would say the Lord puts us on the plane, the other says the Lord invites us on the plane to provide us with that which we are unable to do ourselves.

Both concepts are found in the scripture:

John 1:10

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.​

In verse 12 we are told it is only those who receive Him (an act of their will) have power given to them to become the sons of God.​

Then in verse 13 we are told it was God's will all along.​

Now some may say this is orwellian doublethink.
But this is not George Orwell but God speaking and with God all things are possible.​

What usually comes forth from these public debates is not good. ​

We camp out on one side or the other and shoot our arrows.​

HankD​

 

Van,

This reminds me of a little "Bible Study Group" a young couple who joined our church a few years back had soon afterwards started in their home.

They no longer attend our church, but the rest of us learned an important thing from them during the short time they were there.

One mark of false teachers is they concern themselves more with stirring controversy than anything else.

Here we find them focused on stirring controversy over the meaning of a particular word.

It’s an old trick, but “trick” it is the right word for it…….

The controversy discussed here is based on falsehood.

The truth is It does not matter one bit whether anyone agrees with the questionable ideas being presented here.

It is really very simple.

Your understanding of the passage being discussed is more biblically sound than any of these others, but they seek to change your mind.

Another old trick, the purpose of which is to gain a foothold to convince you they "understand" the bible better than your preacher does.

So, you do not need, and clearly do nor want, their help in “understanding” Romans, or any of the epistles, whether those of Paul, James, Peter, John.

They are professing to “help you understand” while ganging up on you like a WWR tag team. All they lack to complete the picture are hoods, capes, and folding metal chairs to slap you around with.

The fact is, it does not matter if one understands Romans, or not.

It does not even matter if one has ever even heard of the epistles, whether those of Paul, or any of the others.

The fact is, the epistles Paul wrote were not scripture in Paul’s time, these were letters he wrote to other missionaries, and Paul himself would not have considered them as anything other than that.

They most certainly describe what Paul taught, so can serve as a good source for the Gospel message, but they were letters, and much of their original purpose was specific to the churches they were addressed to.

One needs to be careful with Paul in the first place, and very watchful when someone comes along telling you what you learned in church is wrong, and starts trying to "prove it to you" using verses plucked out of Paul.

Witness how well they twist Paul into what they want you to believe.

Paul is filled with truths that a student of theology should be interested in, but the four Gospel accounts were written specifically to record the Gospel message as it was taught by the LORD, and if you could only have one book from the bible, any of the four Gospel accounts puts all you really need to “know” or “understand” right in front of you.

The Gospel -- > It was taught by Paul, taught by Matthew taught by Mark, taught by Luke, taught by John, taught by James, taught by Peter, taught by all of the first 11 apostles, and it was taught by the multitude that followed them.

The Gospel -- > First taught by our Lord and Savior.

The Apostles were but messengers.

The same thing they are today.

Jesus is the WORD.

Pick any one of those Apostles in the bible, and you will have the Gospel taught by Jesus.

God preserves his word.

Those that try to lead folks away from it serve the adversary.

 

Hi Van, for the most part I agree.

My post was to show how it is possible to come down on either side of the C vs A issue with scriptural support.

BTW, I am not convinced of either position since there is disagreement in and many flavors on each side of the C vs A debate camps.

No matter the variant of either I am left unsatisfied.

These debates especially seem to have the potential to become viscious.

My own conclusion is that there is something we do not know concerning the resolution of eternity with the seeming paradox that our eternal God has somehow entered the time continuum.

My own scriptural resolution that brings peace:

Proverbs 3

5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.​

We are not asked to understand but to trust and acknowledge Him in all that we say and do.​

HankD​

 

God is no respector of persons, so IF election was based upon Him foreseeing that we would choseright for Christ, would be honoring ourpart on helping Him to save us!

Thing, again, is that as sinners, we cannot come to Christ in free will!

the fall made that impossible, so election HAS to be based upon God alone!

 

The Bible does not teach that unregenerate man without the Spirit cannot believe, it teaches unregenerate man believes and then receives the Spirit.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

This question by Paul demands the answer that these persons received the Holy Spirit by hearing and believeing the word of God. Hearing and believeing is the cause, receiving the Spirit is the effect.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

This verse is as plain as it gets, we receive the Spirit AFTER first believeing. So obviously a man without the Spirit can understand the gospel and believe.

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Does this verse say that those that God regenenerated and gave the power to become sons of God received and believed Jesus? NO. It says those who received Jesus and believed on his name, "to them" gave he power to "become" the sons of God.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Paul's question in verse 2 directly implies that a person receives the Spirit AFTER they believe, as agrees with all the scriptures previously shown.

Jhn 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Thousands of people believed on Jesus before he was crucified, rose from the dead and was glorified. They could not have done this by the indwelling Spirit, because the Spirit was not given yet. Again, this agrees with all scripture that shows a person first believes and then afterward receives the Spirit.

I don't know what Calvinists mean when they say "regenerated", but it is clear that people can believe without the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is shown over and over again in scripture. To the contrary, there is not one single verse of scripture anywhere in all the Bible that shows a man must be regenerated or made alive to have the ability to believe. Not ONE.

Calvinists can act smug all they want, they have ZERO scripture to support their doctrine and they know it. It is all a man-made unscriptural doctrine.

They will NEVER show scripture to support their position, because there is none.

 

ALL we have really is jesus, and His Apostles, and to us that is quite enough!

 

Winman...all these verses support calvinism....if someone understands what the verses mean.

 

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.​

HankD​

 

Not everyone is given eyes to see.

 

Your inability to understand the verses like this one in james and the others you mis-handle ...are leading you tragically into error..as I see you are part way into the open theism heresy as per your post on the other thread.
We are not speaking about the same God....so you will never agree.

 

Van,


you say....

Unable
un·a·ble (n-bl)
adj.
1. Lacking the necessary power, authority, or means; not able; incapable:

Here are the texts;
7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

14But 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.


These verses state the facts openly....we are not to add or take away from them.... Man is described as;

1]the carnal mind is enmity against God

2]for it is not subject to the law of God,

3]neither indeed can be

4]the natural man receiveth not

5]natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God

6]for they are foolishness unto him

7]neither can he know them


He needs to be regenerated and given a new heart...so he is no longer, natural ,or carnal, but spiritual....

It is your bogus posts that distort the truth of God....

it does not give options like you suggest..it is stated as fact...

All natural man are in this condition.......so keep you twaddle,and shuck and jive,and fiddlesticks, and open theism to yourself:laugh::laugh::thumbsup:

 

Even though icon might have areas in which he is wrong, he ALWAYS uses the scripures as his source, how about you?