Featured The Arminian Dilemma

Now you are seeing my point about question begging. I was responding to your presuppositions (about total inability regarding law) with my presuppositions about grace for all. I did this to reveal our actual points of contention and your dependance on begging the question in regard to total inability as it relates to the law.

 

You are mixing two different issues. When it comes to those who have NOT heard the gospel we are discussing a different matter all together, because according to our perspective, those who are faithful with a little will be entrusted with more.

Here is a link to an article explaining...

 

This would be an excellent argument if the scriptures did not give multiple accounts of people without the indwelling Holy Spirit believing.

Jhn 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
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.)

This scripture is clear, whoever believes on Jesus, out of his belly show flow rivers of living water, which we are told in verse 39 is the Holy Spirit.

So, this verse shows believing precedes being given the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Here Peter shows that repenting and believing precedes receiving the Holy Spirit.

I could show many more, and have. All of these scriptures show that Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8:7-8 cannot be correct.

This is why Biblicist has attempted to show that OT saints had the Holy Spirit, because he knows this overthrows his view. Instead of simply believing the scriptures, he attempts to twist and manipulate scripture to fit his presuppositions.

 

Baloney, even after Pentacost Paul showed that he believed an unregenerate man could believe and that AFTERWARD he received the Spirit.

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.

This verse is plain and simple, and shows Paul believed a person received the Holy Spirit AFTER believing.

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?

Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians received the Spirit AFTER believing the gospel.

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 very simple, it shows this order;

#1 They heard the gospel

#2 They believed the gospel

#3 They were sealed with the Holy Spirit.

I think I could show you a thousand examples from scripture and you will reject every one of them to hold to Calvinism.

All of these scriptures occurred after Pentacost, and all show a person first believes the gospel and then afterward receives the Spirit.

Your argument is not with me, but with the word of God.

 

Yes, I am pitting the many scriptures that refute your interpretation of Romans 8:7-8.

If you isolate Romans 8:7-8 from all other scripture, you have an excellent argument for Total Inability.

Unfortunately for you, that is not how scripture works. You must find all scripture that pertains to a given subject. Yes, Romans 8 seems a strong argument of inability, but a dozen other scriptures argue that unregenerate man CAN believe.

Romans 8:7-8 can be understood in a way that does not contradict these many other scriptures. It is simply saying while a man is "carnally minded" that he cannot please God or obey his laws.

But obviously unregenerate men are not always carnally minded. The 3000 persons at Pentacost were there to worship God, they were not being disobedient, they were tending to spiritual matters. Yet they were not saved and none of them had the Spirit.

This shows your interpretation is error.

 

Give me a break, you think the 3000 at Pentacost were pleasing to God?

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Peter told these 3000 Jews that they had taken Jesus, and by "wicked hands" had crucified and killed.

You think this is pleasing to God?

You need to quit trying to prove Calvinism and simply believe the Bible.

 

Give it up man. You simply do not know how to admit you are wrong. Those 3000 men did not have the Holy Spirit, which refutes your interpretation of Romans 8:7-8. They were able to repent and believe on Jesus, and afterward they received the Spirit.

You love Calvinism more than you love the word of God.

 

I have no doubt that you believe you are always correct.

You can't take a single verse out of the scriptures and isolate it. You need to compare scripture with all other scripture pertaining to the same subject. And as you see, there are MANY scriptures that clearly show a man believes on Jesus, and then afterward receives the Holy Spirit. This refutes your view of Romans 8:7-8, it must mean something other than what you believe it is saying.

 

Indeed a mixture. Timothy was saved even before he became a Christian according to 2Tim 3:13-16.

And in Romans 11:1-6 even after the cross Paul admits to both lost and saved individuals being in the nation of Israel - even though the nation itself was in apostasy.

I don't think this point makes or breaks that case you are making for Calvinism - but it is certainly a Bible detail that can be confirmed in the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Let's not miss the details. Romans 8:6-8 makes the case for the lost being unable to behave like perfect saints without the Gospel.

But obviously - that is not the "unreasonable God" conclusion because God offers salvation to each one of the lost so they need not choose rebellion.

We should not get caught up in the wrong-headed argument that the lost have no need of the Gospel to be perfect little saints - obeying God's Law - were that true we would need not gospel at all.

The reason God is not "unreasonable" is that he provides the way of escape -- it is NOT because the lost are fully able to be saints just fine without the Gospel.

Don't let yourself be talked into tossing out the baby with the bath water "as if" that is the only alternative to the Calvinist proposal.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[FONT=&quot]
God says he "overlooks the sins" commited in ignorance. "To him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". God takes the burden upon himself to cover the sins of those who are ignorant through no fault of their own (not ignorant due to blind determination not to be informed on a given doctrine in scripture).

So the "unreasonable God" story does not work there - Christ is the "Atoning sacrifice for OUR sin and not for our SINS only but for the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2.

Their sins are covered and they are 'without excuse' precisely because of that "Drawing of ALL mankind to Me" John 12:32.

Without the "unreasonable God" argument there is no Calvinist paradigm for God being the saboteur of His own Gospel appeal and the cause of His own lament.[/FONT]

 

False, Timothy was saved by believing on Jesus.

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

There is nothing in this scripture to teach Timothy was saved before he became a Christian.

Romans 1 has nothing to do with Pentacost. At Pentacost the 3000 were not saved, neither did they have the Holy Spirit, else Peter would not need to promise them the Spirit if they repent and are baptized.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Further proof they were not saved is verse 40;

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

 

No need to.

Your argument fails to take into account the full Bible scope of action and responsibility and the simplest of cases demonstrates it.

For example the man who is so drunk he cannot keep his car in his own lane is still charged with a crime when he plows into oncoming traffic.

You are making the nonsensical argument that it is "unreasonable" to expect the drunk to stay in his lane since he "cannot" - while ignoring the fact that the drunk did not have to choose to drink and is therefore held responsible for what follows. The lost do not have to refuse the Gospel and are therefore responsible for what follows.


But the state makes the case that the drunk "had a choice" to drink or not to drink.

The same is true with the sinner and God who EXPECTS the sinner to accept the offer of salvation and then from there be enabled to do as Romans 8:6-8 says the saints can well do in the case of the LAW of God.

God does not EXPECT that the wicked are enabled to keep the Law of God AS UNSAVED wicked people - any more than He "expects" the fully drunken man to stay in his own lane.

You keep missing this point each time it is brought up because you "need" an "unreasonable god"paradigm to justify the idea that God is the cause of His own Lament saying "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1.

Fallen man cannot help that he is born fallen - but Christ dies as the "Savior of the WORLD" 1 John 4 - and declares "To him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin".

in Christ,

Bob