Featured Why believers cannot resist sinful temptations? (continue conversation)

No, that is not what we were talking about or are talking about. We are talking about ABILITY to believe whereas you are simply stating the obvious where no disagreement exists and that is righteous is obtained ony by faith.

 

Yes, we did and I pointed out that NO LOST MAN LIVES BY THE TRUTH (Rom. 3:9-12). If any man "lives" by the truth it is because of God's work in them as those in whom God works not only come to the light but walk (lives) in the light. The lost man LIVES IN SIN and DOES SIN so he is not that man who "lives" in the light or comes to the light. The inability is stated and the nature of the fallen man demands inability to do this in that state - Rom. 8:7

We are attempting to cover too much materials and ground and so nothing can every be accomplished.

 

Each context you quote from also explains how this is done - not by you but by the power of God (2 Cor. 3:3-6; Ezek. 36:26-27).

Here you do the same thing by suggesting that one must come into to the light and clearly see (be regenerated) in order to live by truth (respond to truth). But the verse is in the opposite order of your system once again.[/QUOTE]

I "suggested" no such thing! Indeed, I said the very reverse. I said those who come in the light do so because it is God that worked in this in them first.

Even though you deny it, God did demand that Israel obey His law knowing full well they had no ability to do so but nevertheless condemned them and that law has never been obeyed by either fallen or regenerated men according to how God defines obedence to it. This inability to obey the ten commandments is still the condition of fallen man when confronted with the gospel commands and you have nothing to disprove that.

 

If that be the case for Calvinism then it cannot escape the charge of claiming that God is the cause of His own lament about sinners that refuse grace and saints that fail in their perseverance.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Do you remember the following post between you and I? Your responses are in red:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Biblicist
1. Would you agree God commanded Israel to keep the Law?

Yes. For the purpose of revealing our need for grace (which we know is applied through faith). See sig. line...


Quote:
2. Would you agree that obedience to the Law must be defined by God's standard rather than yours or mine? For example, James 2:10-11 sets forth God's standard for obedience and disobedience to the Law.

I believe so, if you mean it how I think you mean it...


Quote:
3. Would you agree that fallen man does not have ability to keep every point of the law? If not, then why do we need Jesus?

I believe we fall short in keeping the law and thus need a savior.

Quote:
4. Would you agree God is nevertheless just in condemning men for coming short of that standard?

Absolutely


Now compare this with your most recent response to the very same questions:

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
1. He does in fact command the fallen man to keep the Law.

yes.


Quote:
2. He does in fact condemn them for coming short

No. He didn't come to the world to condemn it, but to save it. He provided the means by which they may be saved, so no he doesn't condemn men for coming short. He condemns unbelievers for unbelief, while giving grace to the humble who trust in Him.

3. Quote:
He does in fact condemn them.

No. He provides means by which they might be saved through faith.

Notice that your answers in 3 and 4 in the first set directly contradicts your answers to the same questions in 2 and 3 in the second set.

In the first set of questions you said "absolutely" and that you "believe" the lost are condemned for coming short but in the second set of questions you said "no" and "no" to the very exact same questions concerning the very exact same thing.

 

AND it was also pointed out then and there - that the REASON God is just in condemning the lost who do not keep the Law of God - is because ALL are DRAWN - "I will DRAW ALL men unto me" John 12.32

And "even the Calvinists" will admit that the Drawing of God - ENABLES the choice to choose the Gospel.

Thus ALL that are condemned as Paul says in Romans 1 are "Without excuse".

This was pointed out before - and you found these Bible "details" perhaps too difficult to address in making your point above.

But the "point remains" anyway.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Totally irrelevant. Nothing implies this "conclusion." As an aside to a wasted post, no, I don't.

Again irrelevant. Your assumption that "instant sanctification" renders us sinless is ludicrous and unbiblical. But again, to honor the wasted post, yes, I do.

Again irrelevant. Same reasons as above, and again, to the wasted post, yes.

Ah! Finally! A relevant question!

Personal sanctification was accomplished when Christ provided salvation and redemption for us through His work on the cross it set every believer apart unto God as His own possession.

Hebrews 13, NASB
12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.​

Note, the writer says "the people," making it a corporate sanctification for all who believe. Believe, be in Christ. Be sanctified, instantly.

What you and I call "progressive sanctification" is personal sanctification. The nature of progressive sanctification is the present work of the Holy Spirit, whereby the believer is progressively being set apart from sin, and brought toward personal perfection. In contrast to positional sanctification which is a once for all setting apart as a child of God, Progressive sanctification is an experiential progress whereby one is being set apart from sinful ways, and re-characterized by the Holy Spirit through the Word, to make the child of God fit to be His own possession.

James 1
23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. ​

There is a third sanctification, the perfect, which is accomplished when we enter heaven in our glorified bodies.

I gave you the examples in both the Old and the New Testaments whereby you should know I believe this. So you're back to "irrelevant."

 

Nice try but wrong! I was trying to prove is wrong what you confess you believe. You believe that God does not demand of anyone what they are not able to do! However, the Biblical evidence is abundantly clear that God did demand Israel to keep the law knowing fully well they were not able to do that (Deut. 5:29/Jam 2:10) and yet JUSTLY condemned them as sinners - violaters of the law under just penalization. That is a fact that is repeatedly made clear throughout the scriptures.

1. They were obligated to keep what God knew they could not keep - Deut. 5:29; Rom. 3:19-20

2. They were condemned for failing to keep what God knew no man could keep. - James 2:10

Hence, your belief that God does not demand what man cannot do is wrong. He most certainly did and makes it abundantly clear He did.

Now, that fact cannot be disputed if you are a honest interpreter of scripture. So the question arises, how can God be just and demand of men what He knows they cannot do and yet condemn them? The only possible just basis for this is that all mankind existed and consisted in one human nature acting in unison in ONE MAN (Rom. 5:12) whereby they freely and willfully forfeited their STATE OF ABILITY TO LIVE SINLESS and fell from it by sin into a STATE OF INABILITY TO LIVE SINLESS.

Now, I have talked to you sufficiently to realize you will never admit that God did demand of Israel what He knew not one of them was able to perform but nevertheless condemned them "under sin" unto death .

What I claimed was that your belief that God will never demand what man is not able to perform is false as this is exactly what God DID with Israel and the Law. You attempt to confuse readers by asking what was the purpose of the Law while completely ignoring it immediate and stated purpose to reveal and prove you are a sinner which without the extended purpose (to lead them to Christ for justification) would have no relevance whatsoever.

 

These questions are revelant to the purpose I asked them. They define what you do or don't believe so I can understand where you are theologically. There are those who do believe they can live above sin. There are those who do define sin differently. I don't know you and so these questions allow me to see exactly where you are coming from.

So your corporate sanctification is one and the same with positional sanctification and progressive sanctification is personal indivdiual spiritual growth under the power and leadership of the Spirit. If I have properly understood your position, then we have no disagreement in regard to positional versus personal sanctification.

 

Now, the completion of progressive sanctification is glorification which is a sinless condition. Resurrected glorified saints are sinless in spirit soul and body. Progressive sanctified saints are not sinless or they would not be in a progress of sanctification or in a progress of being set aside unto holiness.

God in His purpose of salvation did not choose to bypass progressive sanctification and just immediately glorify us upon conversion. However, none can deny that God's grace is sufficient to do that if He had so chosen to do that. So it is not a matter of insufficient grace but a matter of the measure of grace He chooses to apply to us now versus then.

So my point was this - Since God could if He chose, He could immediately glorify us upon conversion and remove all possibility of sin in our life but chose not to. Does that make him the author of our sins because he did not choose to instantly glorify us and thereby remove all possibility we could sin? My answer is no! Mere insufficient grace to live sinlessly does not make God the author of our sins and neither is God obligated to give us sufficient grace to live above sin.

 

You could have asked in a more conversational way. Then perhaps I wouldn't have been so snippy -- which was uncalled for, regardless. Please accept my apology, and my seeking forgiveness.

QUOTE=The Biblicist;2063384]So your corporate sanctification is one and the same with positional sanctification and progressive sanctification is personal indivdiual spiritual growth under the power and leadership of the Spirit. If I have properly understood your position, then we have no disagreement in regard to positional versus personal sanctification.[/QUOTE]No, apparently not. I'm still not sure where you stand on the concept of (for lack of a better term) "instant" sanctification granted at the moment of salvation.

 

Apology accepted